PDA

View Full Version : 8-Core Mac Pro In January? Displays Too?




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Dec 29, 2006, 10:45 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

MacScoop/MacOSXRumors believes that an 8-core Mac Pro is currently on track for a January release (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/12/30/8-core-mac-pro-and-new-displays-slated-for-january). In addition, the sites' sources indicate that a 4-core configuration may be left in Apple's lineup at a lower price point.

AppleInsider has previously indicated that development on the systems has been complete for some time (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061025231946.shtml) and that a release was expected this year. While details on the upgraded machines remain scarce, some were reportedly able to upgrade their Mac Pros (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913074907.shtml) to Clovertown CPUs without incident, indicating that research and development on Clovertown-based Mac Pros may not need to be extensive if the CPU is only being upgraded.

Also mentioned was the possibility of a simultaneous release of refreshed displays. We had previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061222114846.shtml) that new displays perhaps would be released in or around MacWorld with built-in iSights, and MacScoop continues to believe that the new displays will also support HDMI. MacScoop also hints that the 23" model may be refreshed with a 24" model, and a larger display may also debut. Of interest, Macsimmum news had recently reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061025134441.shtml) that a 50" monitor may be planned for "early 2007".

The exact timing of the events is unknown, but readers should note that MacWorld is traditionally a consumer event. However, if rumors of Apple releasing larger displays with HDMI capability are true, the line between professional and consumer (iTV connectivity?) could be blurred.



dllavaneras
Dec 29, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'd say the displays are possible, except the 50 inch monster. And I'd give the thumbs up to new processors, especially if it'll drive the prices of previous models down

Grimace
Dec 29, 2006, 10:54 PM
bring on the 50" :D

I'll buy one with the new iTV. January is going to be a costly month!

scu
Dec 29, 2006, 10:58 PM
These two products and iTV along with previews of Leopard may be the only new things to report at MW. Everyone is expecting the iPhone or the true video iPod, but Steve will most likely focus on iTV and Leopard. The new screens and bigger desktops will compliment the great features of Leopard and eventual release of PS3.

The MacBooks and iMacs are selling well enough along with the iPods that this MW will be geared to the professionals.

dllavaneras
Dec 29, 2006, 10:59 PM
bring on the 50" :D

I'd have to get a new wall to put that beast in my room!
But I could get used to that really, really quick:cool:

Multimedia
Dec 29, 2006, 11:03 PM
I'll Tell The 8 Core In Novembrer Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to come over here. Hopefully this time won't be another false alarm. ;)

I sure hope it has Stoakley-Seaburg (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) inside. I'm wary of one without it.

BTW, I would buy a 50" monitor for sure. In any event all the displays need new Cold Cathode Florescent Lamps (CCFL) for a 92% Color Gamut so print can lose their CRTs.

MovieCutter
Dec 29, 2006, 11:03 PM
Since when does MacosXRumors have any credibility???

adk
Dec 29, 2006, 11:07 PM
Are 8 cores actually efficient? It seems like the more cores would deliver diminishing returns since the computer now needs to manage 8 seperate cores.

phillipjfry
Dec 29, 2006, 11:09 PM
I just hope the release of the bigger/newer displays will lower the prices on the iMacs. I'm getting tired of playing on the iMac's at the apple store :mad:

iJawn108
Dec 29, 2006, 11:13 PM
wow 50 inch would be nuts! and id so buy one lol

notjustjay
Dec 29, 2006, 11:14 PM
8 core Mac Pros? 50" monitors??

I'll believe it when I see it...

ppc_michael
Dec 29, 2006, 11:21 PM
I can confirm the display rumors to be true, because I finally got a 23" for Christmas and these things always happen to me. xD

pimentoLoaf
Dec 29, 2006, 11:23 PM
Finally! :p

I can replace my aged PowerMac 6100 with something more capable. :D

idea_hamster
Dec 29, 2006, 11:33 PM
...this is going to be awsome!

MacRumors is going to load so freakin' fast with 8 cores and it'll look so good at 50" -- I can't wait to upgrade my MR experience! :D

mattcube64
Dec 29, 2006, 11:36 PM
Hmm, lets see...

If the 8 Core models can bring down a 4 Core model to $2000, that would mean we could see a MP refurb for around $1700, maybe? If that were the case, then one is definitely within my means. It's when a computer breaks the $2K, $2500, and $3K (w/ display) that I start to think there's no way I can afford one before college.

avkills
Dec 29, 2006, 11:37 PM
Are 8 cores actually efficient? It seems like the more cores would deliver diminishing returns since the computer now needs to manage 8 seperate cores.

Let me guess; you don't do much rendering or intensive processing?

-mark

Grimace
Dec 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
Let me guess; you don't do much rendering or intensive processing?

-mark

the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.

One of Leopard's new features may be that it is "core aware" of up to 8 cores. (Steve probably made it aware of up to 16 but won't tell us :D )

stevehp
Dec 29, 2006, 11:43 PM
I hear they are putting those 50" into MBP's :D

MacFan26
Dec 29, 2006, 11:54 PM
That'd be great if releasing the new displays also brought the prices down a little. Or at least stay the same if they change the specs. woo! I'm starting to get excited :)

Some_Big_Spoon
Dec 29, 2006, 11:57 PM
I can rip 4 DVD's at once now! WooHoo!! I've ripped DVD's and converted movies with iSquint at the same time on a 4 core, 2.66GHz 4GB MacPro and not maxed out all the cores. I'm not being snarky, but I don't know if anything outside of Renderman or a Slashdot server needs 8 cores yet.

Of course, Apple will now release Aperture 2 which will require a petaflop of processing power to launch the splash screen and I'll be made the fool.

Let me guess; you don't do much rendering or intensive processing?

-mark

dante@sisna.com
Dec 30, 2006, 12:00 AM
I'll Tell The 8 Core In Novembrer Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to come over here. Hopefully this time won't be another false alarm. ;)

I sure hope it has Stoakley-Seaburg (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) inside. I'm wary of one without it.

BTW, I would buy a 50" monitor for sure. In any event all the displays need new Cold Cathode Florescent Lamps (CCFL) for a 92% Color Gamut so print can lose their CRTs.

I am here from the 8 Core Thread.

This is mac nirvana for print, web and video work I do. I want both.

Yes we need Stoakly-Seaburg to make Octo effective and efficient.

mccoma
Dec 30, 2006, 12:04 AM
the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.

Most people do not have just one app running. Heck, look at the number of processes running on your OS X box right now. 8 cores can be used by most people and won't be a waste.

Erasmus
Dec 30, 2006, 12:06 AM
Woah... Eight cores in a Mac Pro in JANUARY??? I mean, two whole Clovertown chips? That's insane! MacScoop and MacOSXRumors are really sticking their necks out this time.

Seriously, in my opinion the only thing rumourworthy about 8-core Mac Pros is if they AREN'T released at MWSF2007. They should have been released weeks ago, and Apple had better be giving "Multimedia" his Stoakley/Seaburg goodness to keep us all waiting this long.

50" screen? HAHAHA! That is all I have to say.

ToastyX
Dec 30, 2006, 12:10 AM
They HAVE to update the displays soon because the 23" panel (LG LM230WU3) used in the 23" Apple Cinema Display is being discontinued in favor of the new 24" panel (LG LM240WU1), which means they have to switch panels. There's also a new 26" panel (LG LM260WU1) with better specs, but I don't know if Apple will use that one. There's also a new 30" panel (LG LM300WQ1) with better specs (1000:1 contrast ratio, 92% NTSC color gamut), which the HP LP3065 and the Dell 3007WFP-HC are already using, so it seems logical that Apple will be next. The 20" will probably just get a brightness upgrade. I don't think Apple will release a display larger than 30", but who knows. If they do, it will probably use a 1920x1080 panel. I don't know of any panels larger than 30" with a higher resolution.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 12:11 AM
the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.

One of Leopard's new features may be that it is "core aware" of up to 8 cores. (Steve probably made it aware of up to 16 but won't tell us :D )You might want to go over to the 557 post 8 Core Mac Pro In November Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to help yourself learn more about why 8 cores are practical and needed now. It's more about running a lot of stuff simultaneously or multiples of one intensive rendering or compressing application than it is using one that needs all 8. I'm sure Steve will explain it well enough when the time comes.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 12:20 AM
They HAVE to update the displays soon because the 23" panel (LG LM230WU3) used in the 23" Apple Cinema Display is being discontinued in favor of the new 24" panel (LG LM240WU1), which means they have to switch panels. There's also a new 26" panel (LG LM260WU1) with better specs, but I don't know if Apple will use that one.

There's also a new 30" panel (LG LM300WQ1) with better specs (1000:1 contrast ratio, 92% NTSC color gamut), which the HP LP3065 and the Dell 3007WFP-HC are already using, so it seems logical that Apple will be next. The 20" will probably just get a brightness upgrade.

I don't think Apple will release a display larger than 30", but who knows. If they do, it will probably use a 1920x1080 panel. I don't know of any panels larger than 30" with a higher resolution.True that. I just bought a 6000:1 Contrast CCFL Samsung LN-S4095D 40" 1920 x 1080 HDTV with dual HDMI inputs and PIP including sound swap so my EyeTV Quad G5 can play second tuner to it for only $1680 delivered. I doubt the Apple 50" will sell as cheap. All the updated displays should have a CCFL backlight to fix poor Color Gamut problems print and video pros have had to date.

Grimace
Dec 30, 2006, 12:32 AM
Before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you might want to go over to the 557 post 8 Core Mac Pro In November Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to educate yourself on why 8 cores are practical and needed now.

Multimedia, you frequently come across very harshly in most of your posts. That's as nicely as I can word it.

I've read all of that stuff and I even know a little bit about the technology itself (gasp!). For right now, there are very few apps that can use all 8 cores efficiently. I'm not saying that it won't be a faster machine.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 12:37 AM
Multimedia, you frequently come across very harshly in your posts. That's as nice as I can word it.

I've read all of that stuff. 8 cores still won't be fully utilized by most apps, even a lot of pro apps. If they are updated soon, great. But for right now, there are very few apps that can use all 8 cores efficiently. I'm not saying that it won't be a faster machine, just not incredibly faster for most people.Not frequently, occasionally. I apologize. I'm sorry, but it annoys me when someone like you posts how most apps can't use all those cores when the whole point is to be able to use many multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously. Moreover, AppliedVisual has recently posted how the 3D applications can be set up to use all 8 cores at once if you understand how to do so - even though it is only built for 2 cores.

dllavaneras
Dec 30, 2006, 12:39 AM
I hear they are putting those 50" into MBP's :D

Nope, they'll be in the real video iPods! Your home theater. In your pocket (assuming you have a really big pocket)

And yes, there will always be the need for better hardware :P I can just dream of folding with 8 cores...

Grimace
Dec 30, 2006, 12:43 AM
Not frequently, occasionally. I apologize. I'm sorry, but it annoys me when someone like you posts how no apps can use all those cores when the whole point is to be able to use many multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously. Moreover, AppliedVisual has recently posted how the 3D applications can be set up to use all 8 cores at once if you understand how to do so - even though it is only built for 2 cores.

I didn't say "no apps". Many/most apps cannot. Multiple applications will benefit - yes. For the sake of the newbies, educate us with more graceful strokes :)

MrTed
Dec 30, 2006, 01:13 AM
That's strange, I asked to my source (and what a source !...can't tell...) about a clovertown macpro update, he/she said nothing before spring...

altivec 2003
Dec 30, 2006, 01:25 AM
The current 30" cinema displays use dual-link DVI connectors and have a resolution of 2560*1600. I did a few calculations, and I found that for a 50" screen to keep the same 8:5 proportions and pixel pitch, the new resolution would have to be something near 4267*2667 (50" monitor should be 42.4" wide by 26.5" tall, while 30" should be about 25.44" wide by 15.9" tall). Is dual-link DVI even capable of supporting such a screen with a typical (60Hz) refresh rate? My brief glance at the wikipedia DVI article suggested that it might not.

Sorry if I've messed up with these computations... it is a bit late. At least one thing's for sure: my Macbook Pro wouldn't be able to drive the monster.

D34thPwny
Dec 30, 2006, 02:17 AM
Way to many cores for my applications... but who cares! Bring it ON! =)

ChrisA
Dec 30, 2006, 02:40 AM
the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.



the 8-core system is targeted at some one who edits video and or multi-track audio.

I don't think applications all need to be re-written to make use of more processor cores. If Apple makes their "core" libraries use multiple cores then all pprogrames that user Core Image can take advantage of 4 or 8 processor cores.

And remember ZFS is coming. ZFS is a file system that really does take advantage of today's excess of CPU power and does on the fly compression, encryption and checksumming.

I'd be very happy if Apple sold a mid-range Mac that had just one dual core Xeon with RAM configurable to 8GB and PCIe based graphic card Just about exactaly 1/2 of a Mac Pro. I'd buy it.

Cepe Indicum
Dec 30, 2006, 03:03 AM
I know I'm a newbie, and it is a very small point, but isn't it Clovertown not Cloverton? :confused:

MacsAttack
Dec 30, 2006, 03:07 AM
I'd be very happy if Apple sold a mid-range Mac that had just one dual core Xeon with RAM configurable to 8GB and PCIe based graphic card Just about exactaly 1/2 of a Mac Pro. I'd buy it.

Such a design would not need to use a Xeon. The only practical differences between the Xeon and the Conroe desktop Core 2 Duo is that the Xeon is wired up and certified for use in a multi-cpu system (like the Mac Pro).

Using a Conroe Core 2 Duo would also allow the use of mainstream chipset on the logic board, and DDR2 memory - all of which would pull production costs down.

Given the Core 2 Duo's low thermal properties it was a big surprise that Apple never used them in the iMac - they could probably have got away with it even in the small form factor. Apple could have increased margins on the iMac, made them faster, and reduced the price...

Perhaps we will see a redesign that does so in 6 months or so?

brandon6684
Dec 30, 2006, 03:08 AM
Well 8 core Mac Pros seem like a safe bet, probably 8 core Xserves soon(probably silently with out fanfare for these) too. People need that power, and it's an easy upgrade. With the switch to Intel, I wouldn't be surprised to see more frequent bumps of this type.

As for the 50" display, I'm not so sure, but with the new focus on consumer electronics, I wouldn't be surprised by LCD TVs(but not Plasmas), especially with iTV(or whatever it will be called) around the corner. MacWorld '07 will probably be very consumer electronics and media oriented. I wouldn't be surprised if new Mac Pros are not introduced here, and instead get released later in December with a simple press release.

brandon6684
Dec 30, 2006, 03:34 AM
Given the Core 2 Duo's low thermal properties it was a big surprise that Apple never used them in the iMac - they could probably have got away with it even in the small form factor. Apple could have increased margins on the iMac, made them faster, and reduced the price...

Perhaps we will see a redesign that does so in 6 months or so?

The desktop Core 2 Duo may have good thermal properties compared to other desktop chips but using the laptop variant was probably a good idea for acoustic reasons. I never hear the fans in my iMac, but I'm guessing that would change if it was the desktop version.

Marx55
Dec 30, 2006, 03:39 AM
Hopefully:

- The 50-inch display can be used as a plain monitor TV. With iTV perhaps?

- More and more applications become fully multicore and multiprocessor savvy, so that a 8X core Mac will run them near 8X faster than a single core Mac. Great for scientific computing which takes days, weeks or even months on the current 4 core Macs.

Be prepared for 16X to 64X cores by 2008 to 2010.

JackAxe
Dec 30, 2006, 05:13 AM
My checklist for what I'll be upgrading to in 2007;

- 8 Core Mac. :D
- Maya 9 UB. :)
- CS3 Suite :cool:
- Flash 9 Pro UB :cool:
- FCP Studio :cool:
- AE Pro 8 UB :cool:
- Painter x :cool:

- Empty wallet. :(

<]=)

tog22
Dec 30, 2006, 05:17 AM
Hmm, lets see...

If the 8 Core models can bring down a 4 Core model to $2000, that would mean we could see a MP refurb for around $1700, maybe? If that were the case, then one is definitely within my means. It's when a computer breaks the $2K, $2500, and $3K (w/ display) that I start to think there's no way I can afford one before college.

__________________
Apple Macbook | White | 2GHz | 1.25GB | 60GB | SuperDrive |
Toshiba 46" HD | PS3 | | X360 | Wii | Dreamcast |
PSP | DSLite | 30GB iPod|

Maybe you could sell one of your six consoles to help pay? ;)

aswitcher
Dec 30, 2006, 05:25 AM
Quad core Mac Multimedia is looking more promising to me with this news.

50"...surely a 40" LCD HD TV screen would be more affordable and realistic...

avkills
Dec 30, 2006, 06:44 AM
Before you make a bigger fool of yourself, you might want to go over to the 557 post 8 Core Mac Pro In November Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to educate yourself on why 8 cores are practical and needed now.

Yes. Almost every single app I use can utilize what we like to call "Symmetric Multiprocessing". ;)

Anybody that does any content creation at all can and will use the horsepower of 8 cores. 3D rendering it is extremely beneficial. More cores the better. Lightwave can already spawn 8 threads on a single render machine.

-mark

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 07:44 AM
I know I'm a newbie, and it is a very small point, but isn't it Clovertown not Cloverton? :confused:You are correct sir. Someone very high up in the administration of this website has had it wrong since day one and seems to be unwilling to correct their mistake. There was even a thread with the name Cloverton in it that I couldn't get them to fix. I've tried to get them to stop spelling it Cloverton but they insist on not fixing the misspelling.

I just sent them another notice by clicking on the red triangle in the lower left corner of Post #1 of this thread. Perhaps you and others here will do the same until they finally notice their mistake and correct their spelling error?

gnasher729
Dec 30, 2006, 08:02 AM
You are correct sir. Someone very high up in the administration of this website has had it wrong since day one and seems to be unwilling to correct their mistake. There was even a thread with the name Cloverton in it that I couldn't get them to fix. I've tried to get them to stop spelling it Cloverton but they insist on not fixing the misspelling.

Just tried this: On Google, "Clovertown" has 1.6 million hits, "Cloverton" has about 60,000. On www.intel.com, "Clovertown" has ten hits, and incredibly Cloverton has two!

jellomizer
Dec 30, 2006, 08:34 AM
These two products and iTV along with previews of Leopard may be the only new things to report at MW. Everyone is expecting the iPhone or the true video iPod, but Steve will most likely focus on iTV and Leopard. The new screens and bigger desktops will compliment the great features of Leopard and eventual release of PS3.

The MacBooks and iMacs are selling well enough along with the iPods that this MW will be geared to the professionals.

Well I am sure Apple is saving the "true video" iPod for when they really need it. Perhaps with Zunes release (although it being a flop) it might be enough to release a system with a bigger screen and higher resolution. I don't expect wireless ability because they still need a wire to charge up though. I really don't see Apple making a Cell Phone, there are way to many of them and a lot of really nice ones, they will be entering an already saturated market. I also expect more on iTV or whatever they will be really calling it. An attempt to make a media center that really work well without having to put a full computer next to your TV will be very nice. Bigger screens OK I guess. But how big do you really need them? Higher Resolution and Brighter Displays are always welcomed. Maybe a case style redesign but who know.

eric_n_dfw
Dec 30, 2006, 08:36 AM
I didn't say "no apps". Many/most apps cannot. Multiple applications will benefit - yes. For the sake of the newbies, educate us with more graceful strokes :)

I'd even challenge the "most aps" comment. I'll ask the same question (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3186361&postcount=78) that I've asked others that say things like that: What app's are you using that don't take advantage of multiple cores and/or CPU's?

guzhogi
Dec 30, 2006, 08:44 AM
I doubt that the 50" display rumor is true. Either the display is going to come out w/ a really low resolution for it's size (maybe a little above the 30") or it's not going to come out for another few months at least. I've heard that the 30" screen is pushing the limits of today's graphics cards in terms of resolution. B/c of that, the only way the 50" can come out is if it has the same resolution meaning you'll be able to see all the individual pixels better making everything look jagged. I don't see the 50" coming out until graphics cards can deliver a much higher resolution (at least 4200 x 2600). Besides, where can you put it?

On the other hand, since it's so big, it'll probably double as a TV. While I find that displays that double as both computer & TV screens have low resolutions for their size, Apple will probably find a way to make it able to have a higher res. I'd like to buy one if it came w/ a good res, saying I got paid at least 20 grand a year more.

Edit: Oops, didn't see altivec 2003's post saying pretty much the same thing.

eric_n_dfw
Dec 30, 2006, 08:49 AM
I just wish they'd get their LCD prices in line with the competition. I just got a 20" widescreen Dell LCD (model E207WFP) at my work for about $260. Why in the world are Apple's 20" LCD's $699!?!?!
Oh, maybe it's because they're better monitors.... actually, no, the Dell is much better:
800:1 contrast vs. 700:1
7ms response time vs. 14ms
HDCP compatibility
DVI-D & VGA compatibility vs. DVI-D only


Apple's does have a built in Firewire 400 and USB 2 hub and better cable management. (whoop-de-frickin-doo; it's not worth doubling the cost)

Sam0r
Dec 30, 2006, 08:58 AM
I would be in favour of Apple releasing a range of budget displays.

I don't give a crap about their 'pro' monitors at all, they're not overpriced at all because they're much better than any other flat panel out there due to their specifications (S-PVA or something..), but they're still too expencive for the non-pro consumer market.

I would like to see new apple displays using less 'pro' technology at a much lower price, then I'd buy one.

longofest
Dec 30, 2006, 09:02 AM
Since when does MacosXRumors have any credibility???

MacOSXRumors != MacOSRumors

MacOSXRumors, also called MacScoop has had a decent history, including calling the 24" iMac

MacOSRumors, which I think you are getting confused with, just makes things up.

eric_n_dfw
Dec 30, 2006, 09:17 AM
I would be in favour of Apple releasing a range of budget displays.

I don't give a crap about their 'pro' monitors at all, they're not overpriced at all because they're much better than any other flat panel out there due to their specifications (S-PVA or something..), but they're still too expencive for the non-pro consumer market.

I would like to see new apple displays using less 'pro' technology at a much lower price, then I'd buy one.

From what I can tell, S-PVA relates to viewing angle -- using the 20" monitor example I gave above, the Apple does have a better spec: 175 deg. v's 160 on the Dell. But spend $100 more and get the better Dell model and you get basically the same glass as Apple plus video inputs and PIP capabilities. (not something I particularly care about) And it's still half the price Apple charges.

Sam0r
Dec 30, 2006, 09:34 AM
From what I can tell, S-PVA relates to viewing angle -- using the 20" monitor example I gave above, the Apple does have a better spec: 175 deg. v's 160 on the Dell. But spend $100 more and get the better Dell model and you get basically the same glass as Apple plus video inputs and PIP capabilities. (not something I particularly care about) And it's still half the price Apple charges.

I've got a Dell 2005FPW 20" display.

The apple displays are much better than the competition, but for that you obviously pay a price.

I've used all the dell's inputs, and to be honest, the S-Video input and Composite inputs and the picture quality is so pathetic they might as well not be there.

Although DVI/VGA is pretty good. I've only ever seen an apple display in an actual apple store, and they do seem brighter and the backlight is much much better, there are no darker spots as there are on the dell.

avkills
Dec 30, 2006, 09:35 AM
In regards to Apple displays; you will get a much better color accurate signal using an Apple display as Apple already has the Colorsync profile for them in the system.

But you can still buy a calibrator and calibrate other monitors to look just as good.

I hope the displays come down in price also, as I am considering getting a bigger one (I have a 20" right now). If they have multiple inputs and support HDMI/HDCP then I will probably be sold.

-mark

Alpinism
Dec 30, 2006, 10:08 AM
If not at MWSF, 8 core, 50" lcd, FCS 6.0 will be out at NAB this april. Why ? because of "the red one".

paulvee
Dec 30, 2006, 10:18 AM
You might want to go over to the 557 post 8 Core Mac Pro In November Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to help yourself learn more about why 8 cores are practical and needed now. It's more about running a lot of stuff simultaneously or multiples of one intensive rendering or compressing application than it is using one that needs all 8. I'm sure Steve will explain it well enough when the time comes.

Yes, or you might want to skip the mental illness, piety, shrillness and intellectual fascism in that thread and just buy it when it comes out if you have the money and need it. Life is too short to share in the madness of fools.

robotjustin
Dec 30, 2006, 10:20 AM
I'm sure this question is asked a million other places, and I tried to use the search function, so apologies in advance for failing miserably!

I have to buy a MacPro today (got a grant that has to be spent before 06 is 0ver.)

If I buy today, will I be able to get any upgrade that may happen at Macworld?

Thanks!

guzhogi
Dec 30, 2006, 10:43 AM
I'm sure this question is asked a million other places, and I tried to use the search function, so apologies in advance for failing miserably!

I have to buy a MacPro today (got a grant that has to be spent before 06 is 0ver.)

If I buy today, will I be able to get any upgrade that may happen at Macworld?

Thanks!

Well, I have a friend who bought a Power Mac G5 2.5 GHz a week before the 2.7 GHz version was released so he was able to trade up. I don't know where he got it (Apple store or somewhere else), but many retail stores offer something like a 30 day money back guarantee. Ask someone who works @ the store you're going to buy it from.

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 10:49 AM
That's strange, I asked to my source (and what a source !...can't tell...) about a clovertown macpro update, he/she said nothing before spring...

I will be shocked if Apple doesn't at least announce 8-core Mac Pro systems at MWSF. Such systems from HP and IBM were trickling out of production and they were saying no full production or direct commercial availability until early '07, maybe as late as spring... Then snap! We suddenly have full commercial availability as of about 10 days ago, Dell is shipping them, even the 2.66GHz 120W CPUs are available with the flick of a mouse and click of a button from Dell, HP and several PC vendors now, today. If Apple waits all the way until spring, which would essentially be NAB in mid-April, then they're missing the boat. It's possible they will wait for Stoakley, but if they do that, they may as well wait 2 more months and hold out for the 45nm die shrink.

I'm equating this to the updated Macbook Pro units... No one will know until it happens, perhaps the day before. And there will be far more Doubting Debbies out there than need be. And then when they finally show up, we'll see all the complainers still complaining that it took Apple too long... Just like with the MBP update, too many complainers that it took them too long, even though only a couple PC vendors beat them to market with the 2.16~2.33GHz chips by a matter of about 3 weeks.

I predict 8-core Mac Pro announcement at MWSF and availability anywhere from January 10 to February 15.

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 10:50 AM
I predict 8-core Mac Pro announcement at MWSF and availability anywhere from January 10 to February 15.


...And I should add that since my predictions are usually somewhat wrong, I probably just screwed everyone. ;)

eric_n_dfw
Dec 30, 2006, 10:55 AM
I've got a Dell 2005FPW 20" display.

The apple displays are much better than the competition, but for that you obviously pay a price.

I've used all the dell's inputs, and to be honest, the S-Video input and Composite inputs and the picture quality is so pathetic they might as well not be there.

Although DVI/VGA is pretty good. I've only ever seen an apple display in an actual apple store, and they do seem brighter and the backlight is much much better, there are no darker spots as there are on the dell.

I think "much" is a very subjective comment. All of the reviews I've seen (C|Net, Anandtech) show them to be pretty much neck-and-neck. In fact, outside of these forums (and Apple's web site), I really never hear of Apple's monitors being too great.

FWIW, the 20" I have has no dark spots at all.

If Apple wants their displays to make in-roads in the home or big business markets, they need to fight with Dell. (Then again, they may care-less about these markets.)

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 10:56 AM
Although DVI/VGA is pretty good. I've only ever seen an apple display in an actual apple store, and they do seem brighter and the backlight is much much better, there are no darker spots as there are on the dell.

The 2005FPW from Dell was mediocre at best... The 2007 model is 10X better. I found all the connections on the 2005 model I have to be unusable except for DVI and the colors are so inconsistant I was going to just return it. Then I had an old, crappy 15" LCD monitor in our server room die, so I just put the Dell 20" there. It's been fine for that role and works as a general PC monitor, but ugh...

The 24" and 30" Dell are the two displays that Dell actually approaches with a more "Pro" attituded. I'll put them up against an ACD any day.

mccoma
Dec 30, 2006, 11:14 AM
For a demonstration of how 8 cores will be useful immediately:

Open Applications >> Utilities >> Activity Monitor
Click the CPU tab
Notice all the running processes and how many of them have multiple threads
More CPU Cores = Less switching of threads = faster

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 11:23 AM
[/QUOTE]I just wish they'd get their LCD prices in line with the competition. I just got a 20" widescreen Dell LCD (model E207WFP) at my work for about $260. Why in the world are Apple's 20" LCD's $699!?!?!
Oh, maybe it's because they're better monitors.... actually, no, the Dell is much better:
800:1 contrast vs. 700:1
7ms response time vs. 14ms
HDCP compatibility
DVI-D & VGA compatibility vs. DVI-D only
What's HDCP? Apple's does have a built in Firewire 400 and USB 2 hub and better cable management. (whoop-de-frickin-doo; it's not worth doubling the cost)I agree Dell is much better value. I have 4 Dells. But the new CCFL HP LP3065 30" is the new champ with 3 Dual Link DVI Inputs for only $1620 at Tiger Direct (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2578169).

mccoma
Dec 30, 2006, 11:27 AM
What's HDCP?

Support for copy protection (generally over a HDMI connector), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 11:37 AM
I will be shocked if Apple doesn't at least announce 8-core Mac Pro systems at MWSF. Such systems from HP and IBM were trickling out of production and they were saying no full production or direct commercial availability until early '07, maybe as late as spring... Then snap! We suddenly have full commercial availability as of about 10 days ago, Dell is shipping them, even the 2.66GHz 120W CPUs are available with the flick of a mouse and click of a button from Dell, HP and several PC vendors now, today. If Apple waits all the way until spring, which would essentially be NAB in mid-April, then they're missing the boat. It's possible they will wait for Stoakley, but if they do that, they may as well wait 2 more months and hold out for the 45nm die shrink.So you think they will ship the first ones without Stoakley-Seaburg (SS)? That bums me out. I may wait for an SS model in that case.I'm equating this to the updated Macbook Pro units... No one will know until it happens, perhaps the day before. And there will be far more Doubting Debbies out there than need be. And then when they finally show up, we'll see all the complainers still complaining that it took Apple too long... Just like with the MBP update, too many complainers that it took them too long, even though only a couple PC vendors beat them to market with the 2.16~2.33GHz chips by a matter of about 3 weeks.

I predict 8-core Mac Pro announcement at MWSF and availability anywhere from January 10 to February 15.I'm hoping end of February with SS inside. I'm not complaining it's taking too long. It's Intel that we're waiting for not Apple. So you would buy one without SS on board?

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 11:46 AM
Support for copy protection (generally over a HDMI connector), see this Wikipedia page on it: High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection)Thanks a lot. I have never heard of this before and appreciate knowing about it.

Will this impact HD content playback from our Macs on 30" monitors as well? Doesn't appear to be a problem with an old EyeTV 500 digital tuner.

gkarris
Dec 30, 2006, 11:49 AM
I just wish they'd get their LCD prices in line with the competition. I just got a 20" widescreen Dell LCD (model E207WFP) at my work for about $260. Why in the world are Apple's 20" LCD's $699!?!?!
Oh, maybe it's because they're better monitors.... actually, no, the Dell is much better:
800:1 contrast vs. 700:1
7ms response time vs. 14ms
HDCP compatibility
DVI-D & VGA compatibility vs. DVI-D only


Apple's does have a built in Firewire 400 and USB 2 hub and better cable management. (whoop-de-frickin-doo; it's not worth doubling the cost)


Here we go again, it's different LCD technology. Dell is crap consumer, Apple is pro-media quality...

Here's the thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327

Cepe Indicum
Dec 30, 2006, 11:55 AM
You are correct sir. Someone very high up in the administration of this website has had it wrong since day one and seems to be unwilling to correct their mistake. There was even a thread with the name Cloverton in it that I couldn't get them to fix. I've tried to get them to stop spelling it Cloverton but they insist on not fixing the misspelling.

I just sent them another notice by clicking on the red triangle in the lower left corner of Post #1 of this thread. Perhaps you and others here will do the same until they finally notice their mistake and correct their spelling error?

Thanks, Multimedia, for the clarification; I was beginning to think we were talking about two different things. Having read your post - and the info from gnasher729 - I have clicked the red triangle :) Hope it helps!

Fair play - I just noticed that the original post has been altered to 'Clovertown'. They listened, I just didn't notice :s

AidenShaw
Dec 30, 2006, 11:57 AM
So you would buy one without SS on board?
Yes, I would and I have.

Note that all those wonderful benchmarks that you've been seeing have been with Blackfords....

Also, be aware that Stoakley-Seaburg will not benefit your Multi-threaded workflows as much as it will help multi-threaded single applications.

The cache snooping is more important for a single multi-threaded process, where threads on all the cores are using the same memory locations.

With multiple application instances on a multi-threaded workflow, there's much less sharing of memory locations, and cache snooping isn't as critical.

I would be surprised if SS makes a difference that you can actually measure for your tasks. A few percent, sure, but think of all the video you can be crunching in the six months or more that you wait for Intel to test and produce the chip, and then wait for Apple to decide to incorporate it into a system.

dkoralek
Dec 30, 2006, 12:00 PM
Thanks a lot. I have never heard of this before and appreciate knowing about it.

Will this impact HD content playback from our Macs on 30" monitors as well? Doesn't appear to be a problem with an old EyeTV 500 digital tuner.

I believe that this is correct. If I read the information about EyeTV correctly, they will only allow the display of HDTV from two sources, overair digital HDTV signals and unencrypted HDTV signals from digital cable. The unencrypted signals will usually be broadcast channels that are carried by your cable provider. Not all cable/sat providers will leave them unencrypted. There are filters, I believe, that will unencrypt the signal. As I read information about HDCP, I believe that every device on the chain must have electonics for HDCP. That is, an HDCP compatible monintor with eyetv won't help you because the eyetv (which is doing the conversion work for the signal) won't have HDCP decoding onboard. (which would mean that you have to have a splitter (or two dvi or hdmi inputs) to the monitor (and would mean that you wouldn't be able to record the encrypted hdtv signal on your mac.

cheers.

mccoma
Dec 30, 2006, 12:04 PM
Thanks a lot. I have never heard of this before and appreciate knowing about it.

Will this impact HD content playback from our Macs on 30" monitors as well? Doesn't appear to be a problem with an old EyeTV 500 digital tuner.

dkoralek has it right. It is for sold digital content (e.g. HD-DVD, Blueray) and encrypted HDTV. If copy protection on the device is turned on, then a non-HDCP compatible monitor will not get full resolution. Do a google on HDCP and Vista for a lot of horrible scenarios.

Porchland
Dec 30, 2006, 12:12 PM
The rumors seem a little paltry this time around. We're a week from Macworld, and there's been almost no talk of:

* November rumors that The Beatles (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196600252) may be coming to iTMS;

* feature rumors for iLife '07;

* whether iTMS will add another studio for movie downloads;

* whether iTMS may add a TV Show subscription model to complement iTV;

* a leaked name for the iPhone and whether it will be an MVNO, unlocked handset or available only through one or a few carriers;

* whether the true iPod video will finally arrive.

Where's the rumors?

vendettabass
Dec 30, 2006, 12:16 PM
* whether iTMS will add another studio for movie downloads;

* whether iTMS may add a TV Show subscription model to complement iTV;

us guys in the UK need TV shows and movies first!! :( come on apple!

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 12:20 PM
So you think they will ship the first ones without Stoakley-Seaburg (SS)? That bums me out. I may wait for an SS model in that case.I'm hoping end of February with SS inside. I'm not complaining it's taking too long. It's Intel that we're waiting for not Apple. So you would buy one without SS on board?

I don't know what Apple is going to do... But we won't see SS until NAB at the earliest. SS chipsets won't ship to OEMs until late February at the earliest, and that means PC mainboards based on the new platform will hit stores around late March.

OTOH, I'm somewhat doubtful that Apple will want to release an 8-core Mac Pro at MWSF just because they can (as Dell and everyone else is doing) and then release an updated model less than 4 months down the road. ...Not Apple's style.

I'll buy the 8-core sometime this spring as I start a couple new projects I'm currently preparing for. Hopefully timing will work out and I can get an SS based system sometime in April (I think my buying window is going to late March to mid April). So I'll get whatever is available and it's starting to look like I'll need 2 of them. :D

AidenShaw
Dec 30, 2006, 12:28 PM
I don't know what Apple is going to do... But we won't see SS until NAB at the earliest. SS chipsets won't ship to OEMs until late February at the earliest, and that means PC mainboards based on the new platform will hit stores around late March.

And about the time the rumours abound about a ProMac with SS - we'll be hearing about samples of CSI showing up...

If you wait for SS, then you'll be forced to deal with the question of whether to wait for CSI....

( http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,39434561,00.htm )

topgunn
Dec 30, 2006, 12:39 PM
What good will HDMI do if the displays do not have speakers?

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 12:43 PM
Here we go again, it's different LCD technology. Dell is crap consumer, Apple is pro-media quality...

Here's the thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh, boy... Been over this one in multiple threads lately. This is an outdated comparison (even with the "updates") between an older revision 23" ADC and the first revision Dell 2405 - in other words, even the "updates" are still 2 years old.

Tons of discussion all over the place between S-PVA and S-IPS... Yet it seems that most discussions only focus on the downfalls unique to each and not the commonly shared problems, nor the benefits of either. Not to mention, S-PVA is the dominant tech out there these days and most panel makers are shifting away from both S-IPS and S-PVA with the shift to HDTFT which uses a different technique alltogether.

Anyway, The ADC displays are not all S-IPS, so what's the point of this argument? The 30" still uses the same Samsung 30" panel used by everyone else. LG has a new 30" panel that will be shipping soon, Apple may convert, but who knows...

The whole S-IPS vs. S-PVA argument is even less defined and a whole lot more muddy and opinionated than the Shadow Mask vs. Aperture Grille CRT argument.

A panel being S-IPS or S-PVA doesn't make it any more or less pro than if it were the other.

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 12:53 PM
What good will HDMI do if the displays do not have speakers?

None what so ever... HDMI (even the latest 1.3 spec) still bases it's video definitions on DVI 1.1. Additionally, HDMI is only single-link so you can't really run any resolutions greater than 1900x1200 from it with full color gamut and 60Hz.

If they include HDMI connectors, it will be nothing more than a conveniency and marketing feature to simplify connection of consumer electronics devices and also show the consumer that they have one of those "HDTV connectors" right on the display.

But without integrated speakers or spearkers that can be attached directly to the display, the HDMI connector will make little sense as it will require consumers to buy an additional HDMI splitter so they can get audio from their HDMI source to their sound system or they will have to use additional cables for analog/digital audio in addition to the HDMI to get the sound... So HDMI seems pointless on the displays.

Some PC video/audio hybrid cards like the ATI All-In-Wonder series are starting to incorporate HDMI, but it makes sense. Video and audio from the same card, delivered over the same single cable.

Rocketman
Dec 30, 2006, 12:54 PM
You might want to go over to the 557 post 8 Core Mac Pro In November Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3191717&posted=1#post3191717) to help yourself learn more about why 8 cores are practical and needed now. It's more about running a lot of stuff simultaneously or multiples of one intensive rendering or compressing application than it is using one that needs all 8. I'm sure Steve will explain it well enough when the time comes.

It became repetitious and as your opinion evolved, a bit schitzophrenic. But the key points are clear and valid. 8-core is needed even for slightly ahead of the curve folks due to the number of apps and processes that already live on a Mac. As heavy PROCESSING apps begin to add in, the NEED for many cores is real. I/O then becomes the bottleneck. Wi-Max, 802.11n, 1000 base T, FW800, eSATA, and other high bandwidth connections are the immediate future.

Rocketman

tortoise
Dec 30, 2006, 12:55 PM
And remember ZFS is coming. ZFS is a file system that really does take advantage of today's excess of CPU power and does on the fly compression, encryption and checksumming.


Not a factor at all. The CPU impact of disk I/O compression/encryption is so low that relational databases have been doing it automatically in the background for ages and it has a negligible impact even on a modest single processor. A modern core typically has a higher compression throughput than the disk subsystem has in theory never mind practice, and by a significant margin, so it will never use more than a small fraction of a single cores capacity.

These 4-core processors will primarily be useful for CPU-bound floating point applications like video compression and multimedia processing (which can always use more CPU), but not much else as a practical matter. The bus and architecture is getting a bit tight.

Rocketman
Dec 30, 2006, 01:11 PM
Yes, I would and I have.

I would be surprised if SS makes a difference that you can actually measure for your tasks. A few percent, sure, but think of all the video you can be crunching in the six months or more that you wait for Intel to test and produce the chip, and then wait for Apple to decide to incorporate it into a system.

That's basicly what I said to MM and AV in the long-winded 8-core thread. This option has been available to people wiling to void their warranty since about 11-20-06. Yes SS will be "good", but not all that good. Yes 45nm will be good, possibly VERY good. But we are talking May 07 or later. If your need for processing on a Mac is large and now, a MacPro with self upgrade to dual Clovertown is possible today and really works.

After I installed my MM is a bit prickly filter, I really appreciated his posts after that. He does post some helpful buying tips on non-Mac stuff.

Rocketman

slidingjon
Dec 30, 2006, 01:30 PM
I'm holding out for the 50", octo-core Newton. I would be shocked if this isn't released in January. Shocked, I tell you!

CJD2112
Dec 30, 2006, 01:38 PM
What good will HDMI do if the displays do not have speakers?

Two things.

1. The iSight still has to send/receive audio. It would make much more sense for all the cables to be put into one cable. I have a 23" Aluminum display with iSight mounted on top, but as it stands there are still cables for firewire and usb that have to be attached to the back of the machine. If iSight is built-in, they can drop the firewire support in the back of the monitor and concentrate on USB only (this is apparent as the 5th Generation iPod went USB, as well as all current input devices). It seems Apple may drop firewire support in the back of the new ACD's altogether. Having an HDMI wire for video and sound (for the iSight mic) would leave only two wires to plug in: HDMI and USB support. (although I take that back. HDMI to the machine would require a compatible HDMI input for video and sound - a new video card??? and how would the machine distinguish between them? Hmmmm)

2. Currently, I have two connections for my Mac Pro. An HDMI to DVI cable goes from my 42" plasma to my Mac Pro, and of course my DVI connects my Mac Pro to my ACD. It could be possible to connect a DVI cable to your monitor, then an HDMI cable from your monitor to a flat screen tv. This would allow a (wired) connection to watch movies on a local flat screen tv without the need for another direct wire from your computer to a corresponding tv.

TMay
Dec 30, 2006, 02:36 PM
I started looking up 2160p, now that word of a "consumer" LCD panel is on the way, and I found that HDMI ORG is pushing for establishment of HDMI 1.3 as the prefered standard for consumer products.

So, theoretically, Apple could provide a 2160p display, HDMI 1.3 (as installed on the Playstation 3) and find a willing nvidia/ATI to provide the graphics card and charge top dollar for a BTO dual quad wlth Blu-Ray burner.

Would the content creation pro's opt for this setup?

Most likely, but I would bet we will see this system at NAB, not at MWSF, and those quad cores will be needed.

psychofreak
Dec 30, 2006, 02:38 PM
Whats this SED stuff I'm hearing about on these here tubes. Apparently clearer 'n' brighter, any chance of sight in an ACD?

psychofreak
Dec 30, 2006, 02:40 PM
I'm holding out for the 50", octo-core Newton. I would be shocked if this isn't released in January. Shocked, I tell you!

Why go for the octo-core, you'll just be jealous of my 32 core one. 50" is a bit big though for my pockets (I'm only 15), I would go for the 30" mini version, or even the 23" nano.

Mac Fly (film)
Dec 30, 2006, 02:57 PM
1. A 30" moniter is big enough for any desk. With the addition of "SPACES" to Leopard, it's clear that Apple doesn't think two minoters or bigger moniters is the way to go. In fact I think 24" is perfect. No bigger is needed. Need more space? Use spaces.

2. 50" has TV written oll over it. Apple will make a 50" TV, it will be designed to look and be used as a TV, it will be black, end of story. They could bring it out with iTV, and bundle iTV inside the TV. So if you have a new TV, you buy iTV only. If you need a new TV, you buy the Apple HD Ready, iTV ready TV.

golfstud
Dec 30, 2006, 03:14 PM
Previous poster is right, 50" will be TV...thank can be used as a monitor..it will be VERY EXPENSIVE..very niche like the 23" was when if first came out.

AS for the 8 core...NO WAY at MacWORLD.

The IPHONE is coming...or should I say the IPOD PHONE. Also ITV with its new name.

Finally, I have a hunch..and now reason to believe it...a Core2 DUO TOWER..priced at $1000...this will work with new displays and have upgrade room that the MINI doesn't have. Just one more thing.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 03:28 PM
Previous poster is right, 50" will be TV...thank can be used as a monitor..it will be VERY EXPENSIVE..very niche like the 23" was when if first came out.

AS for the 8 core...NO WAY at MacWORLD.

The IPHONE is coming...or should I say the IPOD PHONE. Also ITV with its new name.

Finally, I have a hunch..and now reason to believe it...a Core2 DUO TOWER..priced at $1000...this will work with new displays and have upgrade room that the MINI doesn't have. Just one more thing.I think a $1499 Core 2 Quad mini-tower is more likely. Core 2 Duo's era is rapidly ending on the desktop beyond iMac's Merom.

electronbee
Dec 30, 2006, 03:57 PM
I mean really... how many will be able to afford an 8-core machine? The Intel Xeon E5345 Quad-Core 2.33GHz runs in at a cool $1029 (http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5345_2.33ghz.htm) per. Now, true, that is the consumer price so a company like Apple buying in bulk will get a cheaper price.

But, by how much? Unless intel is having very successful production runs there will be limited numbers of the chips until late Spring/Summer and a price to go along with it.

They are also pulling 90 watts each. Going to need more cooling. 180 watts to dissapate!

guzhogi
Dec 30, 2006, 04:14 PM
Previous poster is right, 50" will be TV...thank can be used as a monitor..it will be VERY EXPENSIVE..very niche like the 23" was when if first came out.

AS for the 8 core...NO WAY at MacWORLD.

The IPHONE is coming...or should I say the IPOD PHONE. Also ITV with its new name.

Finally, I have a hunch..and now reason to believe it...a Core2 DUO TOWER..priced at $1000...this will work with new displays and have upgrade room that the MINI doesn't have. Just one more thing.

I just hope the right people at Apple are reading and actually listening to these forums so they know what we want.

TMay
Dec 30, 2006, 04:18 PM
1. A 30" moniter is big enough for any desk. With the addition of "SPACES" to Leopard, it's clear that Apple doesn't think two minoters or bigger moniters is the way to go. In fact I think 24" is perfect. No bigger is needed. Need more space? Use spaces.


And "nobody will ever need more than 640k of RAM".

I'm using a 24 inch now and it isn't big enough for the MCAD work that I do. So maybe a 30 inch is, but I'm sure that there are folks out there that want more resolution for FCP and Aperture, and could live and work with an even larger display. I'm not saying that Apple won't build and sell a 50 inch 1080P TV, merely that there is a desire for a 2160P monitor, a company is producing such, and people will be willing to pay for it.

Seems like a market tailor made for Apple.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 04:28 PM
I mean really... how many will be able to afford an 8-core machine?Very many and most everybody here. It doesn't take a large majority of computer users to make a high priced super powerful Mac a hit - just a small minority that must have them like all the Fortune 1000 companies plus all the media creator companies plus all the media creator freelancers. That will more than make the 8 core Mac a huge hit.The Intel Xeon E5345 Quad-Core 2.33GHz runs in at a cool $1029 (http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5345_2.33ghz.htm) per. Now, true, that is the consumer price so a company like Apple buying in bulk will get a cheaper price.

But, by how much? Unless intel is having very successful production runs there will be limited numbers of the chips until late Spring/Summer and a price to go along with it.

They are also pulling 90 watts each. Going to need more cooling. 180 watts to dissapate!I'm willing to pay whatever they ask for them. I'm sure others here feel the same. Of course demand will exceed supply to begin with. It's a revolutionary product. So what if they are expensive? It's only money and you can't take it with you when you die. I think anything less than $4k will be a bargain. And I'll bet the base 2.66GHz model will be less than that.

So what if they need more cooling? Of course they're going to need more cooling.

carlos700
Dec 30, 2006, 04:28 PM
Such a design would not need to use a Xeon. The only practical differences between the Xeon and the Conroe desktop Core 2 Duo is that the Xeon is wired up and certified for use in a multi-cpu system (like the Mac Pro).

Using a Conroe Core 2 Duo would also allow the use of mainstream chipset on the logic board, and DDR2 memory - all of which would pull production costs down.

Given the Core 2 Duo's low thermal properties it was a big surprise that Apple never used them in the iMac - they could probably have got away with it even in the small form factor. Apple could have increased margins on the iMac, made them faster, and reduced the price...

Perhaps we will see a redesign that does so in 6 months or so?

You could use a Xeon in a single socket machine. Check out the LGA775 Xeon 3000 Series. It is completely identical to Conroe Core 2 Duo. Although, some people claim they are more durable. To my knowledge that has not be proven.

Multimedia
Dec 30, 2006, 04:40 PM
And "nobody will ever need more than 640k of RAM".

I'm using a 24 inch now and it isn't big enough for the MCAD work that I do. So maybe a 30 inch is, but I'm sure that there are folks out there that want more resolution for FCP and Aperture, and could live and work with an even larger display. I'm not saying that Apple won't build and sell a 50 inch 1080P TV, merely that there is a desire for a 2160P monitor, a company is producing such, and people will be willing to pay for it.

Seems like a market tailor made for Apple.Until the posts about it on this thread today, I was unaware of upcoming 2160p (4k) monitors. I imagine they will also be 3840 wide to accommodate 4k HD Video? Is that right? Who's expected to come out with them and when?

We've had 4k projectors for a little more than a year. I didn't know the LCD technology was advancing fast enough to deliver 4k LCD in 2007 already. Anyone have links to pages about this new tech?

MrCrowbar
Dec 30, 2006, 04:45 PM
I'm all for bigger screens. 30" is not that big actually, most people actually have two of those because dual monitors is essential for certain applications (one photo in full screen on one screen, the other screen has all the tools and palettes). Even as a programmer, I love having lots of screen space, the second screen can have all the debug info and source code while the primary monitor has the app running in debug mode.

I'm one of those people who buy a 2000 dpi laser mouse and set the speed to highest so I can move the pointer across 2 screens without lifting just by moving the mouse with my fingertips. And I'm also one of those people that find it ridiculous that most affordable LCDs out there have 72 or 75 ppi. I usually scale everything down to the degree where I can still read it, I could do more if the display was higher res. I have a 19" CRT monitor at work, that I run on 1600x1200. Blurry, distorted and only 75 Hz, but just perfect for palettes, notes, docu pages and stuff.

Most laptops have 100 or 130 ppi. 130 ppi would be a good move for desktop LCDs in my opinion. I hope Apple updates the displays with a higher res. I Would actually make me buy one.

8 Core Mac Pros i a given. Woodcrest (2 cores) and Clovertown (4 cores) can basically be swapped out and Clovertown is coming down in price. I expect to see the high end Mac pro to get dual Clovertown and the lower ones to get dual Woodcrest (as they have it now) with a speedbump. I don't really think the Mac Pros will "downgrade" to one CPU with double the cores.

TMay
Dec 30, 2006, 04:50 PM
Until the posts about it on this thread today, I was unaware of upcoming 2160p (4k) monitors. I imagine they will also be 3840 wide to accommodate 4k HD Video? Is that right? Who's expected to come out with them and when?

We've had 4k projectors for a little more than a year. I didn't know the LCD technology was advancing fast enough to deliver 4k LCD in 2007 already. Anyone have links to pages about this new tech?

Deliver is the key word.

http://www.cmo.com.tw/cmo/english/product/showtv.jsp?flag=20051012111324

search on CMO 2160P for more.

Here's the 2160P camera:

http://red.com/

Got Cash?
Dual Quads might bog on that video.

SeaFox
Dec 30, 2006, 05:45 PM
the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.

One of Leopard's new features may be that it is "core aware" of up to 8 cores. (Steve probably made it aware of up to 16 but won't tell us :D )

In the previous cases of sites swapping the dual core chips for Clovertons, Apple System Profiler saw all 8 cores, so Tiger is already able to recognize the new processors.

Erasmus
Dec 30, 2006, 06:04 PM
Whats this SED stuff I'm hearing about on these here tubes. Apparently clearer 'n' brighter, any chance of sight in an ACD?

If memory serves, and I haven't got them mixed up, SED is a kind of hybrid CRT and LCD monitor. Instead of using polarising filters and liquid crystal, it uses tiny, very simple electron guns like a CRT screen. Each pixel is its own CRT screen, actually three per pixel, for each colour. What does this mean? Well no backlight, so really black blacks, so high contrast ratio. It also means lower power consumption. I don't know if they use phosphorous or not, but I suppose it could mean much faster pixel response times, and maybe even more vibrant colours.

Perhaps they would even be easier to make than LCD's, as they would have less parts, which could mean really, really big screens. If you want more info, I suggest some web searches, ie. Wikipedia. Personally, I'm too lazy.

Erasmus
Dec 30, 2006, 06:12 PM
I'm sure if Apple finds that when they shove in two 2.66 Quads in the Mac Pro, and it performs well, (As I remember others have found) it will arrive at MWSF2007. The Seaburg-Stoakley upgrade I would guess will come late, probably with er, CSI (Don't know what it is yet, but whatever, shall look soon), and maybe even 45 nm procs... Or does SS only work with 65?

I dunno, but I doubt Apple will update the Mac Pro, or even wait to update the Mac Pro just because of Seaburg-Stoakley. Along with something else, then all bets are off.

In parting, there is always room for a bigger screen, although I doubt whether we will see them at MWSF2007, unless it's only like 35" or something. 50", unless it is at the same res as the 30", I seriously doubt for a while yet.

twoodcc
Dec 30, 2006, 06:38 PM
bring on the 50" :D

I'll buy one with the new iTV. January is going to be a costly month!

it will be if you're buying those things! :D

but i hope that the displays are updated. i don't have the money for one though....but maybe one day

failsafe1
Dec 30, 2006, 08:08 PM
I can't comprehend a 50 inch monitor sitting anywhere near my desk. In my single days I had a 50 inch Hitachi projection TV and it was the biggest around at the time.

JeffDM
Dec 30, 2006, 08:25 PM
Most people do not have just one app running. Heck, look at the number of processes running on your OS X box right now. 8 cores can be used by most people and won't be a waste.

Those processes usually only take a miniscule amount of CPU power and as such, don't figure into the need. A single processor can handle all those with ease.

the apps have to be coded to see and utilize all those cores. 99% are not.

One of Leopard's new features may be that it is "core aware" of up to 8 cores. (Steve probably made it aware of up to 16 but won't tell us :D )

I don't know about the veracity of this, but check this out:

http://creativebits.org/8_core_mac_pro

Rocketman
Dec 30, 2006, 08:28 PM
I mean really... how many will be able to afford an 8-core machine? The Intel Xeon E5345 Quad-Core 2.33GHz runs in at a cool $1029 (http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5345_2.33ghz.htm) per. Now, true, that is the consumer price so a company like Apple buying in bulk will get a cheaper price.

But, by how much? Unless intel is having very successful production runs there will be limited numbers of the chips until late Spring/Summer and a price to go along with it.

They are also pulling 90 watts each. Going to need more cooling. 180 watts to dissapate!

If you assume a single chip quad mini-tower, that all is made practical. Plenty of airflow space and pretty low wattage. Keep in mind a mini-tower is likely to only have Apple approved upgrades. Apple is loathe to really provide good upgrade paths to third parties as they might suggest or imply.

Fot YEARS the Ti Powerbooks had an IR port. Unused.

PowerMacs had FW800 fully capable if IP or HD applications. Very few devices used it.

Apple is sufficiently closed-loop they need to make or directly endorse the add-ons for their "new technologies" in order to have any notable adoption beyong extreme niche users.

Rocketman

Rocketman
Dec 30, 2006, 08:31 PM
Almost everybody here. If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how.You must be either poor, hang with poorly opinated people or undervalue what a seriously powerful computer is worth to people who make their living with them.
:eek: :rolleyes:

MM, I am declaring this post rude and judgemental.

Rocketman

JeffDM
Dec 30, 2006, 08:37 PM
I'd be very happy if Apple sold a mid-range Mac that had just one dual core Xeon with RAM configurable to 8GB and PCIe based graphic card Just about exactaly 1/2 of a Mac Pro. I'd buy it.

I would hardly call a system where you can stuff 8GB into it "mid-range", that's pretty high-end. I think that's asking a bit much, particularly when other parts of the system are expensive, cutting out one CPU and halving the memory capacity doesn't drop the cost in half.

Mac Fly (film)
Dec 30, 2006, 08:45 PM
In short SED TV's will give us thinner, bigger displays, with between 5 and 10 times the contrast of existing TV's. I've said it's the future of TV since 2005.
It's better than existing TV technologies in so many ways it isn't even funny.


Here's how it works;

http://www.itmweb.com/bimages/sed.gif

Mac Fly (film)
Dec 30, 2006, 08:55 PM
Here's to the 50" SED Apple HD TV with with side-load BD+DVD player, and iTV built-in. That together with my Apple iTunes TV subscription service, i'll be able to get rid of my VCR, DVD player & cable/digital subcription. Bingo! One TV, one remote, all-in-one-easy-of-use-supremacy in a super-stylish box, that and finally some customer entertainment system happiness.

Well... a man can dream can't he?

JeffDM
Dec 30, 2006, 08:59 PM
I think SED is one of those things you shouldn't expect to see next year, never mind at realistic prices, that would be a couple years afterwards.

MovieCutter
Dec 30, 2006, 08:59 PM
Here's to the 50" SED Apple HD TV with with side-load BD+DVD player, and iTV built-in. That together with my Apple iTunes TV subscription service, i'll be able to get rid of my VCR, DVD player & cable/digital subcription. Bingo!

Well... a man can dream can't he?

I'm in...

crobi
Dec 30, 2006, 09:00 PM
That's the thing, Apple will present a 50 inch display with the iTV integrated.

Lg have already a hard drive integrated in their TV. Why Apple can not present a 50" display with iTV integrated?

http://us.lge.com/products/category/list/tv|audio|video_plasma%20flat%20panel.jhtml

Mac Fly (film)
Dec 30, 2006, 09:17 PM
That's the thing, Apple will present a 50 inch display with the iTV integrated.
Lg have already a hard drive integrated in their TV. Why Apple can not present a 50" display with iTV integrated?


They can. The questions in my mind are; Will they? And.. When will they?

andyh2
Dec 30, 2006, 10:00 PM
If apple releases a 50" monitor, it would be crazy. If you connect a mac pro (or any other mac) to a 50" HD TV the picture quality is...umm horrid, as I've heard. So Apple would have to make it possible for Mac OSX to look good on a huge monitor.:D

illegalprelude
Dec 30, 2006, 10:02 PM
just give me Blu-ray and ill be on board for sure! Im still running on a 1.6Ghz PMG5 :D

Im waiting for Lepord, 8 Cores and Blu-ray drive and ill be making the switch :cool:

JeffDM
Dec 30, 2006, 10:09 PM
If apple releases a 50" monitor, it would be crazy. If you connect a mac pro (or any other mac) to a 50" HD TV the picture quality is...umm horrid, as I've heard. So Apple would have to make it possible for Mac OSX to look good on a huge monitor.:D

That depends, if it is real, is it going to be a TV or a monitor?

Using a TV as a computer monitor is generally ill-advised except for the visually impaired and maybe show/store displays, buying a computer monitor to use as a TV is just a stupid-expensive way to do the job.

The dot pitch of an HDTV is low, but TVs are meant to be watched three meters away, not half a meter. At three, it would look great, at half, it would look pretty grainy. There are variations in HDTVs too, some are 720p or less, others are 1080p. If it's a computer monitor, then I guess Apple would have to switch to the UDI interface because at 100ppi, a dual-link interface is maxed out for the 30" displays.

tezzab58
Dec 30, 2006, 10:30 PM
If my memory serves me correctly, one site virtually promised the 50" for the 2006 NAB Show. It vapourised. It would seem to make sense to hold it off for that show's audience, otherwise we'd be too overwhelmed at Macworld, esp. if the 8 core and newer smaller displays are announced.

I can't see Apple announcing unless they're almost ready to ship, as they would then lose bigtime on existing inventory.

Like others, I truly hope for the BluRay, even as an option.

Happy New Year:)

paradillon
Dec 30, 2006, 10:38 PM
Front Row was the laying down of the cards that apple was going to come out with an iTv like device, and will come out with large panel displays.

The living room is the direction apple has been working to. With the preview of iTv just the displays are left to round out the group.

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 10:48 PM
That's basicly what I said to MM and AV in the long-winded 8-core thread. This option has been available to people wiling to void their warranty since about 11-20-06. Yes SS will be "good", but not all that good. Yes 45nm will be good, possibly VERY good. But we are talking May 07 or later. If your need for processing on a Mac is large and now, a MacPro with self upgrade to dual Clovertown is possible today and really works.

Yes it works, but it's not practical in a financial sense. The 8-core systems will arrive when Apple feels the time is right. I'm not in a huge rush to buy one... I sure could make use of it, but the reality is that most "multi-threaded" applications can barely scale to 4 CPUs and many just can't at all. So I can distribute my workflow across several cheaper dual or quad systems that are available now. The 8-core system coming soon should be priced comparably to current quad-core offerings and that's when it will make sense to buy them. I also have to face the reality of other expanding component costs with increasing cores. With the 3D animation work I do, most of the applications are written to handle multiple render nodes, but the node software itself rarely scales well beyond 2 CPUs. Therefore I'm running multiple render nodes to cover all the CPU cores in the most efficeint manner and each node can soak up a couple gigabytes of RAM as they work. So instead of working on a single frame at a time with all 8 cores crunching away, I'm going to end up with a system working on 3 or 4 animation frames at a time with 2 or 3 cores crunching away on each... In the end, it's about as efficient either way, but the latter will require more 3 or 4 times as much RAM.

AppliedVisual
Dec 30, 2006, 10:54 PM
In short SED TV's will give us thinner, bigger displays, with between 5 and 10 times the contrast of existing TV's. I've said it's the future of TV since 2005.
It's better than existing TV technologies in so many ways it isn't even funny.

No, what's not funny is that we've been hearing all the hype about SED for years now. And the primary backers of SED tech (Canon being one) have yet to produce any tangible product or even a demonstration that lives up to the half the hype.

I agree that SED holds tons of promise, but most of the claims about how good it is, were made 5+ years ago. At the rate LCD is progressing and prices are dropping, I don't see how SED is going to even make it to market... Upcoming LCD tech will have 220 to 350 dots per inch and we'll start seeing sub-pixel operations in the physical realm for HDTV displays. LED backlighting, per-pixel contrast masking, etc...

Elwe
Dec 30, 2006, 11:24 PM
Guys, I know a lot of you cannot imagine nor would ever need more processing power. God knows I have quite a few boxes at home and work that are perfectly fine as they are (primary router is a 486 that keeps chugging; I have beem tempted to retire it a time or time because of power reasons, but I did the calculations--the difference in energy costs are miniscule).

Two concrete examples of why more processing power is needed in some workstations, in two different fields (not the standard answer about video encoding, though that is a huge market that should not be overlooked):

My girlfriend works for a . . . not-so-secret, secret agency. Yeah, I really hope the sniffer program they installed on my box because I sleep with her correctly renders smiley faces. :) She is working on a project that deals a lot with fuild and projectile dynamics. Some of the requirements of what they need to be able to do are crazy-complicated--they need lots of ram and cpu. They have server farms doing stuff, but a lot of the time, it would help to have a personal workstation that the engineer can pre-test things on. So enter in the concrete example. There team has a couple of the new Dell 390s--the ones that come with the QX6700 and 4gb ram (ddr2--apparently, Dell will only ship them with 4gb of ram (4 slots), but I know there are 2gb ddr2 chips out there; it could be they do not want to canabilize sales of the 490/690 Xeon line). Anyway, they were under the impression that a workstation like this with plenty of internal raided space would be sufficient to run existing models for short periods of time, and also allow them to plan for the future. They unboxed it, set it up, and found out in the first day that they were wrong. In their two boxes, both memory and cpu were still saturated. This is a $4500 box. Suffice it to say that this "institution" has no funding problem, so no doubt they could keep buying more. But up until now exactly how would you get a much more "powerful" workstation?

Second concrete example. I work for one of the very large biotechs in the San Francisco Bay Area (yeah stock options!). Anyway, we use some pretty intensive software for discovery (anyone work with BLAST?) When you submit a job to our clusters, you have to have a damn good idea of what you are doing. Grid time is expensive (even with today's computers). In my opinion (and my bosses) this limits that creative-scientific thought process in many ways. I persuaded her to get a Mac Pro (2.66ghz) and a Dell 390 (quad configured). Both 4gb ram. In my simulations, I think the ram is fine for now (we can limited the variables we ask in any question, but with memory prices falling, too, at least for ddr2, we are thinking of asking bigger ones in each chunk). We got both so we could do the comparison (the bufferred memory really does slow it--in our sims about 7%, but you can have so much more memory on one of those boards). Anyway, just like my girlfriend, we found out we could use much more processing power. Much more. And for an added $2k, this is a no-brainer for us. Or for many large companies (uhm . . . and agencies :) Again, these are highly specific applications to our industries, but they are widely used applications. And by people who have money. If you, Steve Jobs, are reading this, we will buy crazy amounts in a heartbeat. The time/energy spent in crafting a job so that you do not waste processor time on a grid or cluster is, I feel, enough to justify spending more on personal workstation.

A couple more things in this ridiculously long posting. Does no one remember the SUN and SGI workstations of old? Lots of memory, IO, processing power? There are many industries just salivating at the way Intel and AMD have been beating the hell out of each other. And the modelling folks in our company consider NVIDIA cards first now (thanks to the NVIDIA/ATI wars). A lot of this power may never be used by 99% of people (do not know the numbers), but that 1% who does use them will pay!!!

Also, god love SATA/eSATA. For $1200, I put together a little raided array to have my datasets on. 5 500gb 7200 sata drives, an enclosure, and a port multiplier card. 2TB, raid5. And the performance is great. I am getting 190MB/sec (raid5!) on ZFS. I tested it on the Dell 390 (running Solaris and ZFS). In HFS+ tests before I got this new hardware, I was getting about 25-30% less speed than on ZFS. Will test in the next week or so. So, again, Steve, make sure there are plenty of PCIe cards available, and please give us ZFS, even if only on non-root volumes.

We tend to go on buying plurges every 2-3 years. Our Apple reps smiles when asked about the 53xx in the Mac Pro/Xserve lineup. Strangely, he seems to think we should wait a little while before investing heavily (and I mean heavily) in these boxes. Kind of nice when he could take the commission now, even though the bastard will not tell me when these come out. The last round of buying, I have to convince our IT guys to open up and allow Macs/OSX to be considered for a lot of these things. This time (wether because they have learned more about OSX or because they are now Intel-based or because the Mac Pro acually seems to be prised better than the comparable Dell), they are the ones who started pushing this round of upgrades first.

AppleIntelRock
Dec 31, 2006, 12:16 AM
We need new displays. Steve gave us a 'hint' of where we were going. Possibly apple is your TV? :D

mccoma
Dec 31, 2006, 12:20 AM
Those processes usually only take a miniscule amount of CPU power and as such, don't figure into the need. A single processor can handle all those with ease.
Maybe on your box. I have noticed as the capability of the software / OS has expanded, I have a lot heavier stuff running in the background. This is not a poweruser thing, but a "look at this" thing.

I would probably be more agreeable towards your statement if you argued I/O bound tasks and the like, but people will notice a difference given all the background stuff people do (e.g. importing disc in iTunes (encoding)).

Also, the greater use of virtualization software begs for dedicated cores for the VM.

eric_n_dfw
Dec 31, 2006, 12:36 AM
No, what's not funny is that we've been hearing all the hype about SED for years now. And the primary backers of SED tech (Canon being one) have yet to produce any tangible product or even a demonstration that lives up to the half the hype.

I agree that SED holds tons of promise, but most of the claims about how good it is, were made 5+ years ago. At the rate LCD is progressing and prices are dropping, I don't see how SED is going to even make it to market... Upcoming LCD tech will have 220 to 350 dots per inch and we'll start seeing sub-pixel operations in the physical realm for HDTV displays. LED backlighting, per-pixel contrast masking, etc...

FWIW, Toshiba and Canon demo'ed SED prototypes at CES last January that were doing 32" 720p and predicted 55" 1080p by this year.

Pic's and stories:
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/10010/Toshiba-Shows-SED-Prototype-for-the-First-Time/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/08/sed-up-close-and-personal/

Mac Fly (film)
Dec 31, 2006, 01:00 AM
We need new displays. Steve gave us a 'hint' of where we were going. Possibly apple is your TV? :D

Spot on my friend! You remembered that too eh? "I hope this gives you a little bit of an idea of where we are going"

p.s. your location is rather touching.

dante@sisna.com
Dec 31, 2006, 01:34 AM
Yes, or you might want to skip the mental illness, piety, shrillness and intellectual fascism in that thread and just buy it when it comes out if you have the money and need it. Life is too short to share in the madness of fools.

You have to understand that Multimedia, myself, Applied Visual and others have been taking a beating in the 8 Core forum for months now on the topic of "usefulness of 8 core macs for current production workflows."

We are all hardcore production users of the current Quad Core machines and we fully utilize their power with Applications that both are and are not multithreaded -- in either instance the Quad Core is a huge imporvement over any single or dual core machines.

So forgive us if we are a bit touchy on this subject.

And besides, a forum is "not the madness of fools," it is a place to share ideas and learn -- You and others are right to suggest however, that the way, manner, and sensitivity as to how we do this is important.

Just my thoughts.

Dante

MacinDoc
Dec 31, 2006, 02:22 AM
If apple releases a 50" monitor, it would be crazy. If you connect a mac pro (or any other mac) to a 50" HD TV the picture quality is...umm horrid, as I've heard. So Apple would have to make it possible for Mac OSX to look good on a huge monitor.:D
IIRC, Apple has been granted a patent for a means of providing resolution-independent scaling of graphics. In fact, is that not supposed to be a feature of OS X 10.5?

electronbee
Dec 31, 2006, 03:01 AM
delete

ChrisA
Dec 31, 2006, 03:29 AM
I would hardly call a system where you can stuff 8GB into it "mid-range", that's pretty high-end. I think that's asking a bit much, particularly when other parts of the system are expensive, cutting out one CPU and halving the memory capacity doesn't drop the cost in half.

I guess I've been a Sun customer for to long. Sun calls such a system "entry level" and sells it for $895. Sun calls it the "Ultra 20 Workstation". For the $895 price you get only 512MB RAM and a low end graphic card but the Ultra 20 can be configured with 8GB of RAM, a Quadro FX 1500 and a faster dual core Operteron.

I think it is fair to compare Sun and Apple. Both companies make well built, first class UNIX based workstations. Their company headquarters or not far apart. And both companies make the "whole stack" that is the computer, the OS and many of the applications. No one thinks of Sun as "value priced" yet their entry level workstation is under $1K and is a 64-bit dual core machine.

Apple should be able to match what Sun has done.

mdntcallr
Dec 31, 2006, 05:01 AM
i hope they also add Blu-ray as an option for the new mac pro's

as well as new HDCP compliant video cards. which can also possibly drive HDMI outputs.
anything that will allow high end video/audio.

i would love to get that.

cw2k
Dec 31, 2006, 06:49 AM
as well as new HDCP compliant video cards.

The stock 7300gt in the current Mac Pro is already seems to be fully HDCP compliant (I have tested it and found it works in WinXP with PowerDVD and an HD-DVD via DVI)

AidenShaw
Dec 31, 2006, 08:16 AM
If apple releases a 50" monitor, it would be crazy.

If you connect a mac pro (or any other mac) to a 50" HD TV the picture quality is...umm horrid, as I've heard.

This was true for old CRT televisions (especially when you had to convert the VGA signal to PAL or NTSC), but new LCD/Plasma with VGA/DVI/HDMI inputs are basically the same as monitors. They have a native resolution (1920x1080 for 1080p), and like other LCD panels, look best at that native resolution.

I have a 46" Samsung 1080p connected to a Quadro in a Vista Media Center Edition pc, and the monitor quality is superb (as well as the video quality).

Like another post said, however, I don't have the 46" on my desk, 40cm from my eyes. It has the same width (1920 pixels) as my 24" monitor, and slightly less height (1080 pixels instead of 1200).

At 40cm, the 46" looks just like the 24" monitor from about 15cm - you can see each pixel.

There are probably issues related to color profiles on an LCD panel sold as a TV that would make it unsuitable for some tasks, but LCD TVs are far from "horrid" as monitors.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 09:09 AM
FWIW, Toshiba and Canon demo'ed SED prototypes at CES last January that were doing 32" 720p and predicted 55" 1080p by this year.

...Yes, I was aware of that. The SED panels failed to wow anyone though and even though SED makers are claiming BS numbers like 100,000:1 contrast, most people felt that the panels were no better than current LCD offerings. In it's own right, that is still impressive having a first-time prototype of a new product like this holding its own against top models of the incumbant, mature technology. Seriously, if they can pull off 55" 1080p with equal or better picture than the top Samsung and Sharp LCD TVs for the same or less money, they've got a winner. I doubt it will hit the market this year... :(

I'm not trying to be an SED nay-sayer, but we have yet to see a tangible product we can actually buy. And most of the delays over the past few years in bringing SED to makret have been related to production costs and market conditions. In other words, as PDP and LCD makers continue to battle it out and slash prices, it's going to be very difficult for a new technology to jump into the market and offer equal or better display tech at equal or better price.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 09:17 AM
IIRC, Apple has been granted a patent for a means of providing resolution-independent scaling of graphics. In fact, is that not supposed to be a feature of OS X 10.5?

They have only applied for the patent, nothing is granted... And that patent is fairly likely to not be granted -- just like many others that Apple (or anyone) applies for. But who can blame them for trying, eh? ;) Just like when Pizza Hut tried to patent their stuffed-crust pizza even though countless mom and pop pizzarias and individuals around the world, including my grandmother, had been making stuffed-crust pizza since before Pizza Hut even existed. ...The patent was obviously denied, but hey, they tried and just think of the implications if it were granted... No one else within that patent jurisdiction (pretty much all of north america) could commercially offer a stuffed-crust pizza until someone took Pizza Hut to court and overturned that patent ruling.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 09:24 AM
The stock 7300gt in the current Mac Pro is already seems to be fully HDCP compliant (I have tested it and found it works in WinXP with PowerDVD and an HD-DVD via DVI)

It is HDCP compliant. And so is the ATI X1900XT video card they offer. Now I don't know if Apple has enabled HDCP on either of these two cards within their drivers/software inside OSX... Probably not since their displays don't support it (yet). It's coming... I know I've bitched about Apple's displays recently, but we're just seeing typical Apple product cycles. They will update when they feel it's time and the new displays will be the coolest ones out there (hopefully). I just hope they don't wait for the UDI interface to finally update their displays... That could push new Apple displays as far back as late '07, even into '08. Although, I do expect to see some of the new 4K and 8K LCD panels demoed at NAB this year using UDI... Can't wait until I can buy one!

fblack
Dec 31, 2006, 01:44 PM
I can see new screens introduced alongside iTV, makes sense. You want to watch movies on a big tv dont you? :)

The iPhone they have to get out its too big of a potential market to cede to the telcos.

But 8 cores in january, a new video ipod and Leopard also? Too many products at once and you cant hype them individually effectively. Apple sometimes staggers their product releases, so I could see them waiting an extra month or so to release an 8 core, purely from a marketing perspective.

If they can release all of these products in the 1st quarter of the year plus Leopard then-wow it will be an exciting year for apple and mac-users. I cant wait.:D

Liquidog
Dec 31, 2006, 01:54 PM
Almost everybody here. If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how.I'm willing to pay whatever they ask for them. I'm sure others here feel the same. Of course demand will exceed supply to begin with. It's a revolutionary product. So what if they are expensive? It's only money and you can't take it with you when you die. I think anything less than $4k will be a bargain. And I'll bet the base 2.66GHz model will be less than that.

So what if they need more cooling? Of course they're going to need more cooling.

"If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how."

My two cents (and I'm sorry if someone covered this already):
I've lurked on this forum for years. I don't talk much, but I just have to say, that comment is one of the most incredibly rude things I've ever read here at MR. Not only is it genuinely offensive, but it reinforces the classic negative stereotype of Mac users as snobby, rich, losers.

Multimedia, a lot of what people have been talking about on this thread has been related to smaller displays, lower priced desktops, and so on. Stuff that more people can afford. Of course someone is going to make the point that the new desktop we're discussing might be prohibitively expensive. Lots of MR members are interested in Apple design and capability at less than stratospheric prices. Many of us can't afford a four thousand dollar mac with 8 cores, but you know what? We still belong here.

digitalbiker
Dec 31, 2006, 02:20 PM
"If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how."

My two cents (and I'm sorry if someone covered this already):
I've lurked on this forum for years. I don't talk much, but I just have to say, that comment is one of the most incredibly rude things I've ever read here at MR. Not only is it genuinely offensive, but it reinforces the classic negative stereotype of Mac users as snobby, rich, losers.


I can understand how you might take MultiMedia's comment as rude but I think you are reading a little too much into this comment.

I for one have benefited greatly from discussions with MM. He stays current on tech and he always has good general advice as well as video tech expertise.

I only read MM's comment as meaning this thread is primarily discussing a high-end technology on a professional machine. Therefore anyone who is seriously considering purchasing an 8 core Mac Pro isn't as concerned with low-end pricing as they are with real world performance.

While price is always a consideration on any purchase, most professionals who use computers to make a living realize that hardware costs are very easy to justify when real world performance ie (increased productivity) is increased.

In fact, $4K price for an 8 core highend workstation is down right cheap. I had to pay close to $75K for my first high-end Sun Sparcstation with dual 20" monitors and 20 GB of total disc space back in 1991.

Xyl
Dec 31, 2006, 02:35 PM
I can understand how you might take MultiMedia's comment as rude but I think you are reading a little too much into this comment.

I for one have benefited greatly from discussions with MM. He stays current on tech and he always has good general advice as well as video tech expertise.


I've been lurking here for a while, and MM usually makes knowledgeable posts and does seem to give good advice. However, that particular comment of his about "If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how" was downright rude. If we all only attempted to gain knowledge on the things we own or planned to own, we'd be all pretty stupid.

VanMac
Dec 31, 2006, 02:40 PM
Almost everybody here. If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how.
I've been on this board for while now. Probably the most noob post I've read. Very sad.:(

Liquidog
Dec 31, 2006, 03:41 PM
Digitalbiker, I definitely take your point about this thread being geared towards high end machines, and I understand that relatively speaking, 4k is nothing for that kind of power. I also respect MM's technical knowledge; I just wanted to have my say as far as elitist comments go.

It's weird how this duality with Apple products works: anybody can use them, because the machines are so easy to use; yet not many can afford them, since they're more expensive. That's changing but it's still pretty much true. I think when we embrace the fact that Macs are expensive - and are willing to pay any price for the hardware - then it does a disservice to the real core value of the company and its products, which is ease of use, coupled with incredible capability. Obviously, we have to tolerate the expense to some extent, because you get what you pay for. But that's no reason that we can't hope for lower prices on outdated Mac Pros if new ones come out at MWSF :D

Anyways I'm off topic now. Back to the new gear. Who else thinks they should make the bezels on the ACDs much more narrow?

leekohler
Dec 31, 2006, 03:46 PM
Almost everybody here. If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how.

That was extremely rude. I need pro-level towers as well but you know what? I'm hobbling along just fine with my $1999 Dual-core G5 doing design and video. :rolleyes: Get over yourself- everyone belongs here and is entitled to ask questions.

Multimedia
Dec 31, 2006, 04:00 PM
"If you can't afford one, you don't belong here until you can figure out how."

My two cents (and I'm sorry if someone covered this already):
I've lurked on this forum for years. I don't talk much, but I just have to say, that comment is one of the most incredibly rude things I've ever read here at MR. Not only is it genuinely offensive, but it reinforces the classic negative stereotype of Mac users as snobby, rich, losers.

Multimedia, a lot of what people have been talking about on this thread has been related to smaller displays, lower priced desktops, and so on. Stuff that more people can afford. Of course someone is going to make the point that the new desktop we're discussing might be prohibitively expensive. Lots of MR members are interested in Apple design and capability at less than stratospheric prices. Many of us can't afford a four thousand dollar mac with 8 cores, but you know what? We still belong here.OK. I apologize. Glad I was able to inspire you to make a rare post. It wasn't meant to offend. It was meant to get your priorities straight. I completely agree that it was plain stupid to say no one belongs here. That was one of the dumbest things I've ever written and I sincerely apologize to all for having done so. Of course you all belong here. Duh. I must have been in some kind of super stupid zone when I wrote that. Very harsh. Please forgive me.

Here's my rewrite:

Very many and most everybody here. It doesn't take a large majority of computer users to make a high priced super powerful Mac a hit - just a small minority that must have them like all the Fortune 1000 companies plus all the media creator companies plus all the media creator freelancers. That will more than make the 8 core Mac a huge hit.

A 1993 Mac IIfx sold for almost $10k which in today's money was probably more like $15k today. There is nothing stratospheric about $4k for a radically more powerful Mac than that one was and if you think so then we completely disagree on what is expensive and what is not.

I get the impression that guys like you want more power for almost free. I don't think that's realistic. And I don't like the idea that you think $4k is a lot of money for a very powerful computer. Sorry. I don't. And I don't think I'm alone in that thinking here.I've been on this board for while now. Probably the most noob post I've read. Very sad.:(Thank you for the constructive criticism. I don't know what the word "noob" means but it's probably derogatory. I have a special talent for pissing people off. It's unintentional but nevertheless something I do every once in a while when I read something like $4k is too much money for a really powerful Mac. Dell is asking more than $5k. The Mac will be a bargain at $4k. :)

Digital Skunk
Dec 31, 2006, 04:13 PM
Internet politness is gone these days. This is just like a post I read in the page 2 comment about iSights in ACD. You say one thing that isn't what someone agrees with and they flame you curse like nobody's business, even if you weren't directing the post at them.

I can't afford an 8 core Mac but I will still post comments and learn everything I can about it and what market it is meant for.

And just because somebody knows a lot doesn't mean they aren't being a jerk.:p

p.s. this is not pointed at MM so don't quote me and start calling me names please.:D

leekohler
Dec 31, 2006, 04:19 PM
OK. I apologize. Glad I was able to inspire you to make a rare post. It wasn't meant to offend. It was meant to get your priorities straight. A 1993 Mac IIfx sold for almost $10k which in today's money was probably more like $15k today. There is nothing stratospheric about $4k for a radically more powerful Mac than that one was and if you think so then we completely disagree on what is expensive and what is not.

I get the impression that guys like you want more power for almost free. I don't think that's realistic. And I don't like the idea that you think $4k is a lot of money for a very powerful computer. Sorry. I don't. And I don't think I'm alone in that thinking here.Thank you for the constructive criticism. I don't know what the word "noob" means but it's probably derogatory. I have a special talent for pissing people off. It's unintentional but nevertheless something I do every once in a while when I read something like $4k is too much money for a really powerful Mac. Dell is asking more than $5k. The Mac will be a bargain at $4k. :)

You aren't alone in that thinking. So next time say what you just said, rather than what you said previously. ;)

Digital Skunk
Dec 31, 2006, 04:26 PM
I finally got a really good LOOK at the HP monitor and it is hedious :eek: . I don't care about the "specs" on that brick, that thing is ugly. There needs to be some sort of asthetics when it comes to building things.

Apple, Dell, and NEC have some good looking monitors. Even HP's older monitors were okay at best. This thing is just ugly.

geerlingguy
Dec 31, 2006, 05:07 PM
I finally got a really good LOOK at the HP monitor and it is hedious :eek: . I don't care about the "specs" on that brick, that thing is ugly. There needs to be some sort of asthetics when it comes to building things... This thing is just ugly.

Agreed. HP needs to hire a new industrial design team.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 05:18 PM
I finally got a really good LOOK at the HP monitor and it is hedious :eek: . I don't care about the "specs" on that brick, that thing is ugly. There needs to be some sort of asthetics when it comes to building things.

Yeah, true that... HP's grey color alone is enough to make many people gag. ;)

Multimedia
Dec 31, 2006, 05:25 PM
I finally got a really good LOOK at the HP monitor and it is hedious :eek: . I don't care about the "specs" on that brick, that thing is ugly. There needs to be some sort of asthetics when it comes to building things.

Apple, Dell, and NEC have some good looking monitors. Even HP's older monitors were okay at best. This thing is just ugly.I agree. But I work in the dark so I can't see what's outside the screen itself most of the time. Dual Link DVI Switches cost almost $1k. With 3 DL DVI Inputs on the HP - even includes two DL cables - it's got to be considered if you ever plan on driving it from more than one computer. If so, it's like getting the monitor for $620.

TMay
Dec 31, 2006, 05:27 PM
OK. I apologize. Glad I was able to inspire you to make a rare post. It wasn't meant to offend. It was meant to get your priorities straight. I completely agree that it was plain stupid to say no one belongs here. That was one of the dumbest things I've ever written and I sincerely apologize to all for having done so. Of course you all belong here. Duh. I must have been in some kind of super stupid zone when I wrote that. Very harsh. Please forgive me.

Here's my rewrite:

Very many and most everybody here. It doesn't take a large majority of computer users to make a high priced super powerful Mac a hit - just a small minority that must have them like all the Fortune 1000 companies plus all the media creator companies plus all the media creator freelancers. That will more than make the 8 core Mac a huge hit.

A 1993 Mac IIfx sold for almost $10k which in today's money was probably more like $15k today. There is nothing stratospheric about $4k for a radically more powerful Mac than that one was and if you think so then we completely disagree on what is expensive and what is not.

I get the impression that guys like you want more power for almost free. I don't think that's realistic. And I don't like the idea that you think $4k is a lot of money for a very powerful computer. Sorry. I don't. And I don't think I'm alone in that thinking here.Thank you for the constructive criticism. I don't know what the word "noob" means but it's probably derogatory. I have a special talent for pissing people off. It's unintentional but nevertheless something I do every once in a while when I read something like $4k is too much money for a really powerful Mac. Dell is asking more than $5k. The Mac will be a bargain at $4k. :)

It's all about context.

I have a 6 year old dual g4, gigabit, upgraded to a dual 1.8, and otherwise upgraded in most every aspect, and it has been fine for most of my needs, except that I have maxed out the power supply. I am unable to install much more than a 19 inch display, as the processor and Radeon 9800 will otherwise draw too much power. I have looked at the various models subsequent to the MacPro Core2 duo's, and have not been all that excited. Not enough to make purchase a priority.

On the other hand, I have a couple of PC's (Pentiums) that I run MCAD software (Pro/Engineer/GibbsCAM) on, and my priority has been to get back on a maintenance schedule, add a couple of modules, upgrade to 24 inch screens, and even add a seat of Solidworks. These things cost me about $30 a day in maintenance, seven days a week, but I generate income from them.

Today, or at least soon, I will be able to move the apps on my g4 and pc's to a single machine, some variant of the MacPro, with the benefit of running even more Apple pro apps ( I now have FC Studio via a Soundtrack Pro upgrade) plus at some point run CS3 in native mode.

Still, I'm not quite ready to buy (patience is a virtue I suppose) as I still await a Blu-Ray burner, Leopard and CS3, even perhaps HDMI connectors on new cinema displays, and graphics cards.

While I sympathize with those on tight budgets, I have to concur with MM that this discussion is regarding pro machines, running pro applications. The cost of entry is still relatively low, and most can swing some sort of financing if they need to.

Otherwise, I can't see any real issues with running even pro applications on a mac mini, barring special video/audio interfaces, albeit the performance will be quite different. Mac mini's really are quite affordable.

Here's some more context.

I drive a rebuilt 1986 Ford F-250. My wish list for this year includes a seat of CFDesign, Maya, a Nikon D200, and a Panasonic AG-HVX200P. I'll have to work a lot of hours in my machine shop business, which doesn't leave much time for watching television, shopping at the mall, weekends, or vacations.

So please stop with the elitist labels. I'm a working stiff, and I'll assume MM is as well, and all of us make decidely personal choices with our income and time.

Rocketman
Dec 31, 2006, 05:49 PM
With all this discussion of 4K and even 8K display, I thought it might be helpful to show a tool for 4K capture.

http://granitedigital.com/catalog/pg60_alumhotswap2-4drive.htm

Rocketman

Rocketman
Dec 31, 2006, 06:01 PM
I am interested in this Pro vs Consumer debate because I live in a world (industrial product testing) with beyond-pro needs and a prosumer budget. The consumers here would be shocked to learn a mere camera to capture so-called 4K video costs between $30k and $120K, and the storage system to save it costs $6k-14K, and the computer to process it costs about $10K. One seat.

Now some complain a decked out MacPro costs upward of $4k, but those folks do not have a "need" to do content "creation" and "processing", but mere lookup, viewing and archiving.

Making a dent on society still costs substantial $.

Apple increasingly excels at doing it.

Rocketman

TMay
Dec 31, 2006, 06:14 PM
I am interested in this Pro vs Consumer debate because I live in a world (industrial product testing) with beyond-pro needs and a prosumer budget. The consumers here would be shocked to learn a mere camera to capture so-called 4K video costs between $30k and $120K, and the storage system to save it costs $6k-14K, and the computer to process it costs about $10K. One seat.

Now some comlpain a decked out MacPro costs upward of $4k, but those folks do not have a "need" to do content "creation" and "processing", but mere lookup, viewing and archiving.

Making a dent on society still costs substantial $.

Apple increasingly excels at doing it.

Rocketman

http://red.com/

The red one goes for about $17k base price, and it does 4k. Should interface to MacPro via 3rd party cards albeit FCP probably doesn't have a direct interface yet.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 06:18 PM
Rocketman has that right... Actually his camera costs are a bit low. ;) But then again, we will have the RED One this year. 4K RAW, variable frame rates, and more with base packages starting at $17K... Hope you reserved one if you want to own it before '07 is gone.

AppliedVisual
Dec 31, 2006, 06:20 PM
http://red.com/

The red one goes for about $17k base price, and it does 4k. Should interface to MacPro via 3rd party cards albeit FCP probably doesn't have a direct interface yet.

Arr... You beat me to it.

Should work with a Mac Pro just fine. RED RAID and other data magazines for it should connect to a Mac Pro just fine. The RED Cine software already works with Mac... And this is one of my intended applications for the 8-core Mac Pro I intend to purchase this spring. :D

TMay
Dec 31, 2006, 06:31 PM
I lucked out. Timing is everything.

I'm a hobbyist and I'm shooting for the Panasonic AG-hvx200p. Looks like the best of the under $5k units, though P2 memory is out of sight still.

Is red delivering cameras for purchase yet? I seem to recall that there are only test units in the field.

JoeG4
Dec 31, 2006, 07:25 PM
Introducing the 50" iPod with the all new kickwheel.

digitalbiker
Dec 31, 2006, 07:53 PM
Here's my rewrite:

Very many and most everybody here. It doesn't take a large majority of computer users to make a high priced super powerful Mac a hit - just a small minority that must have them like all the Fortune 1000 companies plus all the media creator companies plus all the media creator freelancers. That will more than make the 8 core Mac a huge hit.

A 1993 Mac IIfx sold for almost $10k which in today's money was probably more like $15k today. There is nothing stratospheric about $4k for a radically more powerful Mac than that one was and if you think so then we completely disagree on what is expensive and what is not.

I get the impression that guys like you want more power for almost free. I don't think that's realistic. And I don't like the idea that you think $4k is a lot of money for a very powerful computer. Sorry. I don't. And I don't think I'm alone in that thinking here.Thank you for the constructive criticism. I don't know what the word "noob" means but it's probably derogatory. I have a special talent for pissing people off. It's unintentional but nevertheless something I do every once in a while when I read something like $4k is too much money for a really powerful Mac. Dell is asking more than $5k. The Mac will be a bargain at $4k. :)

I agree with you MM.

I am planning on dropping somewhere in the neighborhood of $8K on a new mac pro system if it comes out with everything that I want at MW.

It is expensive but it seems cheap compared to the systems I am used to buying in the past.

whatever
Dec 31, 2006, 09:57 PM
Don't hold your breath for any new MacPro systems in January.

A brand new iMac will be launched in January, looking quite different from the current G5/Intel Core Duo models.

The strategy at Apple all along was to have a transparent transition from PowerPC systems to Intel systems without alienating the exisiting PowerPC userbase. This is why Apple did not make any drastic changes to any of their enclosures (except for the MacBook and we all know why that was done) at the time of the launch of the new Intel systems.

However, the iMac's current enclosure has reached it's EOL and will be phased out in January.

New MacBook Pros will be launched in the Spring, followed by the brand Mac Pro in July.

New ACD will be launched in January also.

aswitcher
Dec 31, 2006, 10:07 PM
Don't hold your breath for any new MacPro systems in January.

A brand new iMac will be launched in January, looking quite different from the current G5/Intel Core Duo models.

The strategy at Apple all along was to have a transparent transition from PowerPC systems to Intel systems without alienating the exisiting PowerPC userbase. This is why Apple did not make any drastic changes to any of their enclosures (except for the MacBook and we all know why that was done) at the time of the launch of the new Intel systems.

However, the iMac's current enclosure has reached it's EOL and will be phased out in January.

New MacBook Pros will be launched in the Spring, followed by the brand Mac Pro in July.

New ACD will be launched in January also.

And the Mac Mini? Will it grow up into a true multimedia mac?

whatever
Dec 31, 2006, 10:14 PM
And the Mac Mini? Will it grow up into a true multimedia mac?

The Mac Mini is an odd one and often flying off the radar. I'm not sure if it's intentional or people just forget about it, either way it never comes up in conversations.

Rocketman
Dec 31, 2006, 10:25 PM
Don't hold your breath for any new MacPro systems in January.

A brand new iMac will be launched in January, looking quite different from the current G5/Intel Core Duo models.

The strategy at Apple all along was to have a transparent transition from PowerPC systems to Intel systems without alienating the exisiting PowerPC userbase. This is why Apple did not make any drastic changes to any of their enclosures (except for the MacBook and we all know why that was done) at the time of the launch of the new Intel systems.

However, the iMac's current enclosure has reached it's EOL and will be phased out in January.

New MacBook Pros will be launched in the Spring, followed by the brand Mac Pro in July.

New ACD will be launched in January also.

You seem to say these things with a certain degree of certainty rather than "claimed speculation".

Therefore I ask these simple questions:


1. Will maximum memory capacity at least double accross the line in 2007?
2. Will we see 64 bit accross the line by 3-07?
3. Is P-Ram real in terms of Apple Samsung+ pre-contracts and product adoption in 2007-8?
4. Will we see 4 core and 8 core shift (way) down in the Apple price point in 2007?

I chose which questions to ask. No iPhone, no PBG5, no Newton+, no fullscreen iPod. . . . :)

Rocketman

whatever
Dec 31, 2006, 10:35 PM
You seem to say these things with a certain degree of certainty rather than "claimed speculation".

Therefore I ask these simple questions:


1. Will maximum memory capacity at least double accross the line in 2007?
2. Will we see 64 bit accross the line by 3-07?
3. Is P-Ram real in terms of Apple Samsung+ pre-contracts and product adoption in 2007-8?
4. Will we see 4 core and 8 core shift (way) down in the Apple price point in 2007?

I chose which questions to ask. No iPhone, no PBG5, no Newton+, no fullscreen iPod. . . . :)

Rocketman

1. No
2. Yes (but not 100% sure because of the Mac Mini)
3. Don't know.
4. Absolutely not - this will not be happening in anyones lines in 2007, for various reasons.

Rocketman
Dec 31, 2006, 10:45 PM
1. No
2. Yes (but not 100% sure because of the Mac Mini)
3. Don't know.
4. Absolutely not - this will not be happening in anyones lines in 2007, for various reasons.

Thanks for the direct and timely replies.

Would you care to expand on any of thse things to the extent you know of "near-certain" facts?

Rocketman

cynerjist
Dec 31, 2006, 10:55 PM
My checklist for what I'll be upgrading to in 2007;

- 8 Core Mac. :D
- Maya 9 UB. :)
- CS3 Suite :cool:
- Flash 9 Pro UB :cool:
- FCP Studio :cool:
- AE Pro 8 UB :cool:
- Painter x :cool:

- Empty wallet. :(

<]=)

lmao. me thinks that kit is worth more than my car.

bretm
Dec 31, 2006, 11:38 PM
lmao. me thinks that kit is worth more than my car.

If they're all upgrades I see it as about 7k. So yeah, it's probably worth more than your car. Sorry.

Jbook
Jan 1, 2007, 12:09 AM
I just wanna know, has ANYONE ever said "damn, this 30" display is just not big enough.. i would really like something larger like maybe a 50"

if i had a dime for every time someone has said that, ide have 20.. maybe 30 cents. BUT im not gonna lie ill be jelous if any of you buy one... that is if this rumor is true.

paradillon
Jan 1, 2007, 12:13 AM
I just wanna know, has ANYONE ever said "damn, this 30" display is just not big enough.. i would really like something larger like maybe a 50"

if i had a dime for every time someone has said that, ide have 20.. maybe 30 cents. BUT im not gonna lie ill be jelous if any of you buy one... that is if this rumor is true.

The 50 inch display would not be for the desktop environment it would be part of a complete package for the living room. iTv, Front Row, and Apple large screen display.

whatever
Jan 1, 2007, 01:05 AM
The stock 7300gt in the current Mac Pro is already seems to be fully HDCP compliant (I have tested it and found it works in WinXP with PowerDVD and an HD-DVD via DVI)
Hi, I'm not claiming to be any type of HDMI/HDCP expert, but it's my understanding that HDCP encription only works over HDMI. I know that the HDCP spec claims that it works with DVI, but based on what I've been told DVI bypasses all HDCP.

How did you test this?

I've been doing some research on this, because I was about to buy a Pioneer Elite Pro-FHD1 (50" Plasma) and a Pioneer Elite A/V receiver (VSX-82TXS). My plan was to connect the Plasma to the receiver via HDMI and then connect my digital cable box and eventually iTV (or whatever it will be called) via HDMI through the A/V receiver. Should work, looks great on paper and all of my cable clutter would be gone, but here's the catch it doesn't quite work yet. The store I was working with has been working with various Cable/Satalite providers, and audio manufacturors to test various setups in their labs and it doesn't work. Basically the HDMI has problems with crossovers. What happens is that the HDCP is not being passed.

So a workaround is to use DVI, which ignores HDCP completely.

What's funny is that all of my content is legal and I have no problems using HDMI with HDCP (I know others do, but I don't), however, it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work, so you have to work around the HDCP by using DVI.

In another post some one questioned using HDMI for only video, in the real world all you would need is DVI, however, "big brother" wants people to start using HDMI, so that they can sneak HDCP in.

HDMI passes the following: Video, Audio, HDCP and what I think is really cool CEC (however, everyone I talk to have no clue about that feature!).

Sun Baked
Jan 1, 2007, 01:09 AM
I can see this update timing better than the old November one, given that Apple may finally update Airport.

And in Apple speak, much better to hold off an upgrade until the next dog and pony show trots out some new gadgets. Displays would definitely push things off a tad.

However if Airport 802.11n does show it'll probably cause delays in shipping Mac Pros. ;)

AppliedVisual
Jan 1, 2007, 02:52 AM
Hi, I'm not claiming to be any type of HDMI/HDCP expert, but it's my understanding that HDCP encription only works over HDMI. I know that the HDCP spec claims that it works with DVI, but based on what I've been told DVI bypasses all HDCP.

HDCP works over DVI and in fact was developed for DVI... Before HDMI existed. Additionally, HDMI is single-link DVI plus 8-channel digital audio rolled into a single, compact connector. The HDMI video specs (even the latest v1.3) are all defined standard resolutions and timings based on DVI v1.1.

[/quote]The store I was working with has been working with various Cable/Satalite providers, and audio manufacturors to test various setups in their labs and it doesn't work. Basically the HDMI has problems with crossovers. What happens is that the HDCP is not being passed. [/quote]

Actually msot the problems out there with HDMI devices are pretty much limited to satellite and cable receivers. Strange, but true... Starting with Hughes and Echostar... Echostar is the worst as their HDMI port isn't even HDMI. They call it a "HDTV Port" and they have not licensed the HDMI spec. It only works with a very small percentage of displays out there and does not properly interface HDCP, even if you use a HDMI to DVI adapter (nothing more than a cable or adapter with pin reassignment) and send it to a DVI-HDCP display. This is currently a huge problem with their VIP-622 DVR and VIP-211 HD receiver. DirecTv has terrible HDMI audio bugs with their HR-250 DVR. The updated DVR which is in beta market testing right now is reportedly much better. The older H-10 receivers had the same problems as the HR-210/250. The current H-20 is better, but still has some issues. Most SA cable receivers have broken HDMI and on them it's actually not the HDCP that's the big problem. They didn't properly implement the EIA/TIA-861 timings. Connecting them to a DVI display usually works because DVI is required to adapt to the differing timings (or at least within a certain degree of common formats), HDMI is not.

[/quote]So a workaround is to use DVI, which ignores HDCP completely.[/quote]

Uh, no. But most displays with a true DVI connector are far more tolerant of the signals that can be accepted as they are a true DVI interface and not an HDMI interface, which is a subset of DVI and only must adhere to the resolutions and timings set forth within the HDMI spec. And to further restrict that, they don't even have to do that... They only have to support the resolutions and timings that the manufacturer wishes them to. And most manufacturers are using one of the 4 different Silicon Image chipset variants on the market right now and all are fairly limited, even the latest two additions to the SI family which support 1080p. The newest is the v1.3 chipset and has the expanded color depth capabilities and more timing options included.

What's funny is that all of my content is legal and I have no problems using HDMI with HDCP (I know others do, but I don't), however, it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work, so you have to work around the HDCP by using DVI.

If you're working around an HDMI issue buy going to DVI, then it's most likely not an HDCP issue, but rather a signal timing issue. However, DVI is also more tolerant of HDCP signals in different places and timings within a format than HDMI is. So this still could be so... What it all comes down to is manufacturers are trying to be too literal with their HDMI implementation instead of allowing some slack or dynamic ability to it. Rather stupid on their part, but I think it's really a way for the consumer electronics industry to essentially stall and delay the massive rollout of HDMI/HDCP. I'm not usually one for consipiracy theories, but the CE industry does not like HDCP - content providers have forced it upon them. Same thing with 1080p, but in reverse. Content providers have fought 1080p from the start, even broadcasters, often citing extra costs or lack of hardware capability as an excuse, but it really comes down to pressure from content providers on manufacturers is what held it up. 1080p at 24, 30, 50 and 60 Hz were ATSC defined standards right from the beginning and there's no reason for them not to be implemented right from the beginning. 1080p30 has no different bandwidth requirements than 1080i @ 60Hz and 1080p24 is even less demanding than that. It took HD-DVD and BluRay to push 1080p into the mainstream fro new displays and even with that look at the prices. true 1080p displays this year are still 40% cheaper than pseudo 1080p displays from last year.

In another post some one questioned using HDMI for only video, in the real world all you would need is DVI, however, "big brother" wants people to start using HDMI, so that they can sneak HDCP in.

Seriously, HDCP is part of the DVI spec and the shift to HDMI has nothing to do with wanting HDCP in there. The primary reasons behind HDMI is it's actually cheaper to implement than DVI (a smaller-focus, subset of DVI) and it includes audio. DVI is considered a mid-range to professional connection (even though it has proliferated into consumer computer components). HDMI is targeted at the consumer right from the start.

HDMI passes the following: Video, Audio, HDCP and what I think is really cool CEC (however, everyone I talk to have no clue about that feature!).

All of that with the exception of the audio can pass on DVI. DVI can also do even more over dual-link connections with layered HDCP and support for stereoscopic displays or other forms of integrated data streams. HDMI was supposed to get dual-link capability with the 1.3 update, but the dual-link portion of the spec was pulled (literally at the last minute) because it would have required a new connector type to be introduced.

-hh
Jan 1, 2007, 07:55 AM
I am interested in this Pro vs Consumer debate because I live in a world (industrial product testing) with beyond-pro needs and a prosumer budget. The consumers here would be shocked to learn a mere camera to capture so-called 4K video costs between $30k and $120K, and the storage system to save it costs $6k-14K, and the computer to process it costs about $10K. One seat.

There's niches all over the place in various industries. For example, a couple of years ago, I got approved to buy a new digital camera for at work.

And found a good bargain:
1 Megapixel & monochrome. Just under $100K after options.


Joe Consumer would think that I'm insane, as he would assume that a 1MP camera should only cost $50.

But the industry niche application here is ultra high speed photography.

If you want a 2 µsec shutter speed and 1,000+ full frames per second (and up to 100,000 partial frames/sec), the price of admission starts at around $50K, justs for the camera. We ended up spending another $20K for lights, including the power upgrade needed for our lab.



-hh

Homy
Jan 1, 2007, 08:58 AM
A brand new iMac will be launched in January, looking quite different from the current G5/Intel Core Duo models.

However, the iMac's current enclosure has reached it's EOL and will be phased out in January.

New MacBook Pros will be launched in the Spring, followed by the brand Mac Pro in July.

New ACD will be launched in January also.You sound very sure in your comments. Have you some inside info? I hope you're right because I'm planning to buy one in januari but what's the point of a new iMac design without any hardware changes? iMac was updated just 4 month ago. Unless Apple is going to use desktop Core 2 Duos in those new iMacs there are no new laptop processors for them to use any time soon. I think iMac will get a new design together with new Santa Rosa technology later in spring. They did the same thing with iMac G4 and G5, new technology with new design.

I hope iMac gets a new GPU in jan. X1600 has been around now for a year. I hope the 17" at least gets more options like a 256 MB card or some Nvidia cards. I mean ATI has Mobility X1700 and X1800 for notebooks and Nvidia has GF Go 7400, 7600, 7700, 7800 and 7900.

Sam0r
Jan 1, 2007, 09:08 AM
Don't hold your breath for any new MacPro systems in January.

A brand new iMac will be launched in January, looking quite different from the current G5/Intel Core Duo models.

The strategy at Apple all along was to have a transparent transition from PowerPC systems to Intel systems without alienating the exisiting PowerPC userbase. This is why Apple did not make any drastic changes to any of their enclosures (except for the MacBook and we all know why that was done) at the time of the launch of the new Intel systems.

However, the iMac's current enclosure has reached it's EOL and will be phased out in January.

New MacBook Pros will be launched in the Spring, followed by the brand Mac Pro in July.

New ACD will be launched in January also.
I hope they kill the chin and make the gap around the panel smaller.

Porchland
Jan 1, 2007, 11:04 AM
The 50 inch display would not be for the desktop environment it would be part of a complete package for the living room. iTv, Front Row, and Apple large screen display.

I agree. If Apple announces a 50-inch display -- the same day as iTV's coming-out party, no less -- it will be targeted squarely at the living room.

I hope this is where Apple's consumer strategy is headed:

* displays that integrate tightly with WiFi, and iTV;

* Front Row as the default UI for the living room; and

* a subscription plan for iTMS TV that is (a) competitively priced with cable and satellite, (b) has deals for live sports, awards shows, news and other network content, and (c) is 100 percent HD.

Rocketman
Jan 1, 2007, 11:37 AM
What it all comes down to is manufacturers are trying to be too literal with their HDMI implementation instead of allowing some slack or dynamic ability to it. Rather stupid on their part, but I think it's really a way for the consumer electronics industry to essentially stall and delay the massive rollout of HDMI/HDCP. I'm not usually one for consipiracy theories, but the CE industry does not like HDCP - content providers have forced it upon them. Same thing with 1080p, but in reverse.


I believe this error of judgement is what Apple is going to exploit by offering iTV systems and components that solve the problem on an end to end basis. The fact Apple is the world leader in legal content distribution, and they are willing to follow that model on movies as well, with content providers' hardware emphasis, which falls right into the Apple mantra.

Apple will likely offer the very first real consumer easy HDTV expeience. Apple will sell it through Apple Stores, Radio Shack, and Apple.com.

Rocketman

whatever
Jan 1, 2007, 11:42 AM
HDCP works over DVI and in fact was developed for DVI... Before HDMI existed. Additionally, HDMI is single-link DVI plus 8-channel digital audio rolled into a single, compact connector. The HDMI video specs (even the latest v1.3) are all defined standard resolutions and timings based on DVI v1.1.

The store I was working with has been working with various Cable/Satalite providers, and audio manufacturors to test various setups in their labs and it doesn't work. Basically the HDMI has problems with crossovers. What happens is that the HDCP is not being passed. [/quote]

Actually msot the problems out there with HDMI devices are pretty much limited to satellite and cable receivers. Strange, but true... Starting with Hughes and Echostar... Echostar is the worst as their HDMI port isn't even HDMI. They call it a "HDTV Port" and they have not licensed the HDMI spec. It only works with a very small percentage of displays out there and does not properly interface HDCP, even if you use a HDMI to DVI adapter (nothing more than a cable or adapter with pin reassignment) and send it to a DVI-HDCP display. This is currently a huge problem with their VIP-622 DVR and VIP-211 HD receiver. DirecTv has terrible HDMI audio bugs with their HR-250 DVR. The updated DVR which is in beta market testing right now is reportedly much better. The older H-10 receivers had the same problems as the HR-210/250. The current H-20 is better, but still has some issues. Most SA cable receivers have broken HDMI and on them it's actually not the HDCP that's the big problem. They didn't properly implement the EIA/TIA-861 timings. Connecting them to a DVI display usually works because DVI is required to adapt to the differing timings (or at least within a certain degree of common formats), HDMI is not.

[/quote]So a workaround is to use DVI, which ignores HDCP completely.[/quote]

Uh, no. But most displays with a true DVI connector are far more tolerant of the signals that can be accepted as they are a true DVI interface and not an HDMI interface, which is a subset of DVI and only must adhere to the resolutions and timings set forth within the HDMI spec. And to further restrict that, they don't even have to do that... They only have to support the resolutions and timings that the manufacturer wishes them to. And most manufacturers are using one of the 4 different Silicon Image chipset variants on the market right now and all are fairly limited, even the latest two additions to the SI family which support 1080p. The newest is the v1.3 chipset and has the expanded color depth capabilities and more timing options included.



If you're working around an HDMI issue buy going to DVI, then it's most likely not an HDCP issue, but rather a signal timing issue. However, DVI is also more tolerant of HDCP signals in different places and timings within a format than HDMI is. So this still could be so... What it all comes down to is manufacturers are trying to be too literal with their HDMI implementation instead of allowing some slack or dynamic ability to it. Rather stupid on their part, but I think it's really a way for the consumer electronics industry to essentially stall and delay the massive rollout of HDMI/HDCP. I'm not usually one for consipiracy theories, but the CE industry does not like HDCP - content providers have forced it upon them. Same thing with 1080p, but in reverse. Content providers have fought 1080p from the start, even broadcasters, often citing extra costs or lack of hardware capability as an excuse, but it really comes down to pressure from content providers on manufacturers is what held it up. 1080p at 24, 30, 50 and 60 Hz were ATSC defined standards right from the beginning and there's no reason for them not to be implemented right from the beginning. 1080p30 has no different bandwidth requirements than 1080i @ 60Hz and 1080p24 is even less demanding than that. It took HD-DVD and BluRay to push 1080p into the mainstream fro new displays and even with that look at the prices. true 1080p displays this year are still 40% cheaper than pseudo 1080p displays from last year.



Seriously, HDCP is part of the DVI spec and the shift to HDMI has nothing to do with wanting HDCP in there. The primary reasons behind HDMI is it's actually cheaper to implement than DVI (a smaller-focus, subset of DVI) and it includes audio. DVI is considered a mid-range to professional connection (even though it has proliferated into consumer computer components). HDMI is targeted at the consumer right from the start.



All of that with the exception of the audio can pass on DVI. DVI can also do even more over dual-link connections with layered HDCP and support for stereoscopic displays or other forms of integrated data streams. HDMI was supposed to get dual-link capability with the 1.3 update, but the dual-link portion of the spec was pulled (literally at the last minute) because it would have required a new connector type to be introduced.[/QUOTE]

Thank you so much for your clean and concise explanation.

I have literally walked into the store with my credit card in hand ready to buy my new gear and ended up walking out scratching my head, more confused and frustrated than before.

Quick question (I apologize for being off topic, but perhaps this can help others too). So would this solution work, usd HDMI to go from the Elite Monitor to the Elite A/V receiver and then use component connectors for everything else, since the TV is just a giant monitor.

Thanks again

RichP
Jan 1, 2007, 11:45 AM
I doubt we are going to see an 8-Core machine this month; I would suspect sometime in Spring; perhaps with Blueray, and closely coincided with CS3 launch (haha, perhaps AFTER CS3 launch, so people buy up existing stocks of MacPros!)

iTV has basically been "released" to us. I have a feeling we got that unusual product preview earlier to make room this MWSF for something else.

January is always such an expensive month...

tortoise
Jan 1, 2007, 12:27 PM
I just wanna know, has ANYONE ever said "damn, this 30" display is just not big enough.. i would really like something larger like maybe a 50"


That would be me. There are only two things I can never get enough of in a computer and am willing to pay good money for more: RAM and screen real estate. In that regard, a 50" might be just the ticket so that I would finally have enough screen space for a set of windows, though a good implementation of virtual desktops would help a lot too; on UNIX I usually run 3-4 heavily-subscribed desktops at once and flit back and forth between them. I am hoping that OS 10.5's implementation of Spaces is done well so that I can stop complaining about the native lack of this feature. A contiguous 50" screen (assuming a decent resolution) with a virtual desktops would just about the ticket.

CPU that comes with any box that can support enough RAM is usually adequate, so I only pay a modest amount for a speed bump, and the cores need fast, scalable memory access -- lots of cores on a crappy bus don't cut it. Graphics, I don't care about as long as they can drive the display -- no intensive 3D work or games. For hard disk, I only need about 250GB, preferably mirrored for redundancy.

So there you have it. Non-graphical high-performance engineering workstation that needs a ton of screen real estate. That is what I use and abuse a Mac for that is not multimedia related, though it was not a particularly good option until the Intel Mac Pros showed up.

AppliedVisual
Jan 1, 2007, 02:50 PM
I have literally walked into the store with my credit card in hand ready to buy my new gear and ended up walking out scratching my head, more confused and frustrated than before.

Don't worry about it, the current state of HDTV is confusing to say the least and many stores and installers out there are not really familiar with the technology. Even ones who are doing compatibility testing, the best they can do is try it and see if it works and it either does or it doesn't... And many times it's impossible to tell what the actual reason would be... To further complicate matters, most of the problematic equipment out there that is well-known to be a problem, is still being pushed by manufacturers that refuse to acknowledge these problems. An excellent example of that is COX, Verizon/FIOS and Comcast shipping cable boxes that can connect to very few TVs via HDMI. Echostar/Dish has the same problem... I have had more failures than successes connecting their HD receivers and DVR units to display systems. TV manufacturers struggle to... And HD-DVD and BluRay players also have their share of problems. HDMI is intended to be hot-pluggable, yet the Toshiba HD-A1/XA1 HD-DVD players won't activate their HDMI connections unless there is already an active cable connection and if the cable is unplugged, they shut down with an error, forcing the user to restart the unit. Makes it difficult in many home theatre installs to get HD-DVD players working with video switches, receivers and TVs... Lots of extra programming steps for remote controls that involve delays and other pointless things. And then the client always calls me later to complain about how their remote runs too slow or ask why they have to point it at the sensor/TV for nearly 20 seconds for it to do everything. :(

Quick question (I apologize for being off topic, but perhaps this can help others too). So would this solution work, usd HDMI to go from the Elite Monitor to the Elite A/V receiver and then use component connectors for everything else, since the TV is just a giant monitor.

Yeah, this is all off topic, but oh well... Anyway check out www.avsforum.com -- a wealth of information on all this over there. But for the simple, direct answer.. Yes. Drive your plasma (or other HDTV) display from the A/V receiver via HDMI. I would also recommend running a component cable as well, possibly more depending on what you ultimately want to do. But a single HDMI would work just fine.

The newer Pioneer Elite receivers as well as their primary competiton - Denon - upconvert everything for output over HDMI and they work quite well. I put in a Denon 4306 receiver in my home theatre and the component to HDMI conversion is quick enough that I can play my XBOX 360 with no noticeable lag. I've installed both Denon and Pioneer receivers for others.

Anyway, from there you can connect certain devices to the receiver via HDMI or component. In most situations, the component connection on a 1080i HD source will be indistinguishable from HDMI, so it's not something to really worry about. Your cable/sat receiver will probably need to be connected via component. Most DVD players are only component, but newer upscale models have HDMI and most seem to work well across the compatibility chain. Although, many of them don't allow for both HDMI and component to be active at the same time, which can be a problem if you want to view DVD in multiple locations from the same player.

Going back to the the previous advice about running multiple cable sets to your TV, you really won't need it. Especially if you don't use your TV speakers. However many people like to do this so they can adjust picture settings for individual inputs on the TV. Especially calibration freaks who like to color-calibrate their DVD player on its own input and then do the same with their HD receiver on another. So that's something to think about it. But for the rest of us (even a videophile like me) a good HDTV like the new Pioneer plasmas or Samsung 1080P DLP sets will look amazing with a few minutes of adjusting on the HDMI input and channeling everything to that via the receiver.

Oh, and don't pay too much for cables... That's one area where retail store locations really stick it to the customer. I've seen HDMI cables selling in local stores for $100 or more for a 2M cable! That's literally $87 more than that cable should sell for.

whatever
Jan 1, 2007, 03:37 PM
Don't worry about it, the current state of HDTV is confusing to say the least and many stores and installers out there are not really familiar with the technology. Even ones who are doing compatibility testing, the best they can do is try it and see if it works and it either does or it doesn't... And many times it's impossible to tell what the actual reason would be... To further complicate matters, most of the problematic equipment out there that is well-known to be a problem, is still being pushed by manufacturers that refuse to acknowledge these problems. An excellent example of that is COX, Verizon/FIOS and Comcast shipping cable boxes that can connect to very few TVs via HDMI. Echostar/Dish has the same problem...

Oh, and don't pay too much for cables... That's one area where retail store locations really stick it to the customer. I've seen HDMI cables selling in local stores for $100 or more for a 2M cable! That's literally $87 more than that cable should sell for.

Thank you again. Since the Pioneer I'm looking at is just a monitor (no speakers or tuner) I think I'm just going to go HDMI. I was surprised to learn that Verizon/FIOS is shipping with older equipment (according to their site their boxes don't even have HDMI/DVI.

One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Thanks again.

MrCrowbar
Jan 1, 2007, 04:25 PM
Introducing the 50" iPod with the all new kickwheel.

Wow, that's a good one. Hook up the iPod to your HDTV, and mount the kickwheel under your couchtable. Scroll with your toes or use a laser pointer and make the dog do it. Kick the sides of the table to change channels (sudden motion sensor), Hit the table top hard for instant access to pornography. The possibilities are endless! :p :D :cool:

moonfacekid
Jan 1, 2007, 04:59 PM
One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Thanks again.

I was reading an article that stated if you sit away from your TV 10 feet or more, most people would not be able to tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p. Here is a Diagram (http://www.carltonbale.com/wp-content/uploads/resolution_chart.png). Of course if you can afford the difference, then I would say go for the 1080p to future proof your TV a bit more plus to enjoy the better resolution. And of course with technology you will never really be able to "futureproof" ... with TV there will be higher resolutions eventually ... 1440p... and SED technology sometime down the road, etc etc.

AppliedVisual
Jan 2, 2007, 12:30 AM
One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Well, if you want to future-proof your investment, 1080p is desireable. Since you're looking at a plasma display (I think you said), you essentially have the options of 42" at 1024x768, 50" at 1366x768 or 50" at 1920x1080. (for the Pioneer models - other brands have a few different selections) All modes are progressive on the plasma sets... But anyway, the 1080p is the way to go as it gives superior image clarity when viewing HD sources - most of which out there are 1080i from broadcasters right now. HD-DVD and BluRay are both 1080p although not all players output 1080p. If you intend to buy into HD-DVD or BluRay in the future, you will be cutting yourself short if you don't choose the 1080 display.

But what moonfacekid posted is also something to consider. The human eye is only so good... The farther away you are from your display, the less resolution your eye can distinguish and at a certain point you can't differentiate between 720p and 1080p, a bit farther away and you can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p. Try to test it out and let your eyes be the judge. In the end, your own eyes (and your wallet) should be the deciding factor. Don't over-spend either... No reason to break the bank buying into a home theatre setup... That $6K HDTV you can buy right now will be inferior to a $2500 TV within 2 years. Which means that a 720p TV today may be the stepping stone for a much better 1080p display down the road with little or no more money out of your pocket.

drsmithy
Jan 2, 2007, 01:12 AM
I'd be very happy if Apple sold a mid-range Mac that had just one dual core Xeon with RAM configurable to 8GB and PCIe based graphic card Just about exactaly 1/2 of a Mac Pro. I'd buy it.

People have been begging Apple for a machine in this class since the first iMacs appeared - a headless iMac with a modular video card.

Apple won't do it now for the same reason they wouldn't do it then and haven't done it in the interim - because it would absolutely slaughter higher-margin "Pro" machine sales.

Liquidog
Jan 2, 2007, 01:19 AM
I just wanted to thank MM for taking the criticism and responding thoughtfully. Also, thanks to MM, Applied Visual, and others whose technical knowledge make this thread as informative as it is.

drsmithy
Jan 2, 2007, 04:53 AM
Most people do not have just one app running. Heck, look at the number of processes running on your OS X box right now. 8 cores can be used by most people and won't be a waste.

You have a very, very strange definition of "most people". To suggest anything except a tiny niche of customers need 8 cores of processing power *on their desktops* is ridiculous on its face.

Yes, lots of processes are "running" in the background - but the vast, vast majority aren't doing anything _at all_ 99% of the time and most of the ones that are left do very little.

Added to that, OS X still has a lot of maturing to do vis-a-vis multi-cpu scalability (10.5 should extensively improve, for example, kernel locking granularity to this end).

There's certainly a market for 8 core Mac Pros and I expect them to sell well to that market, but it is *extremely* small in the grand scheme of things. It's also unlikely to get markedly bigger in the foreseeable future, because there's simply no need - even with a heavyweight platform like OS X - because the vast majority of users aren't CPU limited, and haven't been for some time.

popelife
Jan 2, 2007, 11:09 AM
There's certainly a market for 8 core Mac Pros and I expect them to sell well to that market, but it is *extremely* small in the grand scheme of things. It's also unlikely to get markedly bigger in the foreseeable future, because there's simply no need - even with a heavyweight platform like OS X - because the vast majority of users aren't CPU limited, and haven't been for some time.


What you say about the majority of users being fine with dual or even quad core is true. But an 8-core isn't about appealing to the majority, it'd be a premium machine for specialist users.

Those working with native DAW applications like Logic, Nuendo, DP, etc would snap up 8-core Mac Pros like there's no tomorrow. Audio plug-ins and virtual instruments keep getting more sophisticated, and power-hungry.

Same I'm sure goes for video people, especially those working with HD. You can never render or compress fast enough.

Apple could sell thousands of 8-core Mac Pros just within these two markets. That alone probably makes it a viable product.

Remember, they also used to say that no-one would ever need more than 640MB of RAM.

Multimedia
Jan 2, 2007, 01:45 PM
Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world. ;)

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". :( I sure hope it won't be that long.

RichP
Jan 2, 2007, 02:05 PM
Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date...

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". :( I sure hope it won't be that long.

I agree with your friend; unless of course we just see one top tier 8-core soon, then a real refresh in the spring. Spring will be ripe for upgrades, with the beloved Adobe apps going universal.

About Premiere, the Adobe/Apple balance always makes me nervous.:o I see how M$ treats their Mac division lately (no more Windows Media, IE was killed years ago, Office is due for an overhaul and wont be compatible with Office 2007 for a while, etc) I would hate to see Adobe cripple its CS suite for OSX out of spite.

digitalbiker
Jan 2, 2007, 10:33 PM
I agree with your friend; unless of course we just see one top tier 8-core soon, then a real refresh in the spring. Spring will be ripe for upgrades, with the beloved Adobe apps going universal.

About Premiere, the Adobe/Apple balance always makes me nervous.:o I see how M$ treats their Mac division lately (no more Windows Media, IE was killed years ago, Office is due for an overhaul and wont be compatible with Office 2007 for a while, etc) I would hate to see Adobe cripple its CS suite for OSX out of spite.

They won't. The difference between Adobe and Microsoft is like night and day.

Apple users make up a significant portion of Adobe's creative software market. Unlike MS Office which has a much larger Windows base of users than Mac users.

Adobe also values it's realationship with Apple as together they have weathered many difficult years together since the Desktop publishing days. Also Adobe listens to it's user base and is always looking to improve.

Many times I get the feeling that Microsoft would just be content to keep selling the same old cr@p over and over without innovation if they could get away with it for an extended period of time.

3CCD
Jan 3, 2007, 12:50 PM
Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world. ;)

Being a videographer myself, this is kind of exciting since both programs have their ups and downs. 2007 for Apple looks huge, even better on my new 24" iMac.

failsafe1
Jan 3, 2007, 12:52 PM
Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world. ;)

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". :( I sure hope it won't be that long.
I love competition. Makes things a lot better. But I always doubt the mysterious inside source. Hope it's true but time will tell.;)

TMay
Jan 3, 2007, 01:41 PM
I believe that Adobe will provide Premiere, based on MM's insider, I just don't believe that there ever was an agreement. I recall that Adobe pulled Premiere from the platform because of FCP's features (Premiere was long in the tooth, and Apple was on the ropes). I surely can't believe that Apple had any leverage with Adobe, though because of Photoshop, I can see the reverse having some truth. Why wouldn't Adobe just provide the "FCP Killer" on the PC platform, what with the availability of Parallels, et al?

Either way, very good news for Apple, Adobe and FCP. The more tools on the OSX platform, the better.

AppliedVisual
Jan 3, 2007, 04:36 PM
I believe that Adobe will provide Premiere, based on MM's insider, I just don't believe that there ever was an agreement. I recall that Adobe pulled Premiere from the platform because of FCP's features (Premiere was long in the tooth, and Apple was on the ropes). I surely can't believe that Apple had any leverage with Adobe, though because of Photoshop, I can see the reverse having some truth. Why wouldn't Adobe just provide the "FCP Killer" on the PC platform, what with the availability of Parallels, et al?

Either way, very good news for Apple, Adobe and FCP. The more tools on the OSX platform, the better.

Yeah, there was never an agreement between Apple and Adobe to limit competing products - in fact, that would be somewhat illegal in many parts of the world. Adobe's official stance a couple years ago is that they would no longer develop products for the Mac where Apple already had a product in place or where they would suffer from too little market interest to justify development. It made sense, even though a lot of Premiere users (and users of other discontinued Adobe products) felt a little cheated. I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe brings Premiere back to the Mac... It makes sense. I think they could do well with it and I can see them even offering their video production bundle with AE too. With the Intel shift, there's no need to optimize code for two different CPU platforums and an OSX version really only calls for the OS-specific portions to be tailored for OSX. So very possible.... FWIW, I've never been much of a Premiere fan, even their latest version. I've always felt it to be one of their weaker software offerings. ...And Ecore as well. On the PC it's one of the better DVD authoring softwares, but it doesn't compare to DVDSP, I wonder what Adobe will do there? I can't imagine them offering Premiere and not also offering their own application to author DVDs on the Mac. Another reason this move would make sense (to bring back premiere) is that Apple now only sells FCP, Soundtrack Pro, Motion and DVDSP as the studio bundle. Apple is almost leaving the market wide open for a good NLE software positioned between their own FCS bundle and Final Cut Express.

Multimedia
Jan 4, 2007, 07:07 AM
And here we have confirmation my rumor was true. Digital Media Net publishes the Adobe press release:

Adobe Production Studio To Be Available for Both Mac and Windows - Adobe's Complete Video Post-Production Suite Goes Cross-Platform (http://premiere.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=92967)

Will be first publicly demoed at Adobe's MacWorld Expo Booth 901 and released mid-2007 giving the market a total cross-platform pro video editing suite for the first time since OS 9. Looks like it's going to be Leopard required, Intel Macs only not UB.

Multimedia
Jan 6, 2007, 01:14 AM
Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18% (http://www.macpolls.com/). I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. :eek: I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

aswitcher
Jan 6, 2007, 07:27 AM
Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18% (http://www.macpolls.com/). I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. :eek: I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

Does sound like you commute to work on public transport or get many phone calls when your on your ipod.

paradillon
Jan 6, 2007, 07:33 AM
Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18% (http://www.macpolls.com/). I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. :eek: I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

When you combine the iPod and phone it really broadens what the device can be beyond just the two. The consumer has to be educated to understand how they will use the device or how even to perceive it. Is it a phone with iPod function or an iPod with phone function, there is a big difference between the two and for me the second is much more appealing.

The interface is the big question for me, how far have they gone to have it be an extension of the desktop environment.

The "Displays" figure is surprisingly low to me. Apple has completely fortold their full onslaugth to the living room environment, so to think they would leave a large part of the equation untouch doesn't make sense. It may just be a timing issue that it isn't in the plan for this Macworld, plus I haven't seen any rumors of display makers ramping up for apple. They are already at high capacities. Or it could be an economics issue due to the low margins display makers are dealing with today.

Multimedia
Jan 8, 2007, 09:19 PM
I'm thinking it's a long shot, but some posts insist it will happen tomorrow. Any thoughts? :confused:

dllavaneras
Jan 8, 2007, 09:28 PM
I'm thinking it's a long shot, but some posts insist it will happen tomorrow. Any thoughts? :confused:

Well, pro machines at 8 cores, iMacs at 4 cores (with a new design), new displays, Apple Phone, iLife 07, mac pro mini tower, iTv, iWork with the spreadsheet app, the small 12" MBP, the tablet mac and a lollypop for each at the end.

Some are going to be VERY dissapointed tomorrow...

cynerjist
Jan 8, 2007, 10:50 PM
man, all this excitement... it's like christmas eve or yom kippur if you're jewish. gosh... my nipples hurt.

AppliedVisual
Jan 9, 2007, 12:47 AM
...to be disappointed!

Multimedia
Jan 9, 2007, 04:27 AM
Thanks to Blackmagic Design's new $249 Intensity HDMI PCIe card with On-Air 2.0 (http://blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/) and their other new $995 DeckLink HD Studio™ HDMI PCIe card (http://blackmagic-design.com/products/hd/), the new Canon HDV Camera line WITHOUT HDMI outputs (http://downloads.canon.com/cpr/software/video/HDV_family_brochure.pdf) is officially REJECTED as instantly OBSOLETE - otherwise known as DOA - and an unacceptable choice. :eek: :p :D :)

From the Intensity product description page:HDMI Quality

Unlike analog connections, HDMI is the new digital standard appearing in the latest cameras, televisions and video projectors. HDMI is fully digital and has no video compression, so it doesn't suffer from any image degradation. Unlike DV and HDV FireWire based video standards, HDMI allows deeper bit depths, and full color resolution, eliminating banding and contouring problems in high quality video. HDMI is found on the latest HDV cameras such as the Sony HDR-HC3.Goodbye Canon and thanks for crappy shortsightedness on your crappy engineering department's part trying to gouge us $3,000 for something Sony's already including in their sub $1k consumer cameras - uncompressed high definition 1920 x 1080 digital video via HDMI OUT.

Hello to whomever puts HDMI out with manual audio gain IN in the next round of Prosumer cameras. The Sony HC3 has no audio input port nor manual audio gain. So that would be the new Sony HVR-V1U with HDMI Output (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/spec.html) for about $3500 or the Sony HDR-FX7 Prosumer version of that camera (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-HDR-FX7-First-Impressions-Camcorder-Review.htm) for as low as $1219 already. Thanks Sony for getting it right the second time around.

AidenShaw
Jan 9, 2007, 10:31 AM
I'm thinking it's a long shot, but some posts insist it will happen tomorrow. Any thoughts? :confused:

Look for the Kentsfield mini-tower today...

Multimedia
Jan 9, 2007, 01:13 PM
Look for the Kentsfield mini-tower today...Great products - just not what we need. :eek: :confused:

Still looking Aiden.

Redneck1089
Jan 9, 2007, 01:52 PM
*Sigh* :rolleyes: No updated Mac Pro. Hopefully we will hear something in the next week or so. I need to purchase one sometime in the near future.

When was the Mac Pro released? Was it June or September?

Umbongo
Jan 9, 2007, 01:58 PM
*Sigh* :rolleyes: No updated Mac Pro. Hopefully we will hear something in the next week or so. I need to purchase one sometime in the near future.

When was the Mac Pro released? Was it June or September?

First week in August I think.

aaronw1986
Jan 9, 2007, 02:09 PM
*Sigh* :rolleyes: No updated Mac Pro. Hopefully we will hear something in the next week or so. I need to purchase one sometime in the near future.

When was the Mac Pro released? Was it June or September?

Close...but August

PmattF
Jan 9, 2007, 02:22 PM
*Sigh* :rolleyes: No updated Mac Pro. Hopefully we will hear something in the next week or so.

Is there any real chance of that? Have they ever released stuff during or immediately after MacWorld but not mentioned it at the keynote?

aaronw1986
Jan 9, 2007, 02:30 PM
Is there any real chance of that? Have they ever released stuff during or immediately after MacWorld but not mentioned it at the keynote?

I'm not sure about Macworld specifically, but there doesn't need a major event to announce the Mac Pro updates. The MBP updates were quietely rolled out in October. Since the Mac Pro's came out in August, they are due for an update soon.

Raid
Jan 9, 2007, 02:30 PM
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was waiting for the 8-core announcment. My guess is the safe money is on a release date in the spring, most likely coordinated with the release of leopard.

Oh well, the iPhone is pretty cool... but I won't be getting one of those for some time either! :(

Jonathan Styles
Jan 9, 2007, 07:05 PM
I was waiting on one to come out too, im studying 3D computer animation and in my final year and have some major rendering to do and was hoping for the 8 core mac pros, i got about Ł2500 and with the educational discounts i could have bought one hec of a machine.

Oh well

:(

.....hope they come out soon.

ChrisA
Jan 9, 2007, 07:21 PM
..
From the Intensity product description page:Goodbye Canon and thanks for crappy shortsightedness on your crappy engineering department's part trying to gouge us $3,000 for something Sony's already including in their sub $1k consumer cameras - uncompressed high definition 1920 x 1080 digital video via HDMI OUT.

The data going over the HDMI wire is umcompresed but the Sony camera is recording to tape using JPEG2000. (wavelet based compression.) The data are compressed as it is written to tape and then uncompressed and sent over HDMI or sent as-read from the tape over Firewire.

Saying HDMI is uncompressed is true but it is exactly like saying the audio inside my iPod headphone cable is uncompresed. Who cares if it is stored as 128Kbps AAC files

Multimedia
Jan 9, 2007, 07:28 PM
The data going over the HDMI wire is umcompresed but the Sony camera is recording to tape using JPEG2000. (wavelet based compression.) The data are compressed as it is written to tape and then uncompressed and sent over HDMI or sent as-read from the tape over Firewire.The compressed HDV output is only from the FW port not the HDMI port during recording to HDV Tape. Playback of course both ports spit out decompressed HDV C**p.Saying HDMI is uncompressed is true but it is exactly like saying the audio inside my iPod headphone cable is uncompresed. Who cares if it is stored as 128Kbps AAC filesThat's not what I wrote.

The Recording Medium Is A Mac Pro HD Raid Array NOT HDV Magnetic Recording Tape.

You misunderstand my meaning. I am talking about recording from the LIVE HDMI output to a Mac Pro HD RAID in studio and live event conditions NOT to the HDV Tape nor getting HDMI output from a HDV tape playback. Completely different meaning. :rolleyes:

Did you read the Blackmagic Design Intensity Page's explanation (http://blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/) of what I am writing aobut? This means being able to use cheap HDV cameras that have HDMI outputs on them LIVE NOT for recording HDV tapes (except perhaps as a crude and hopefully never to be used backup) to the live recording we are making to HD RAIDS inside Mac Pros from those live HDMI outputs.True HDMI Digital Connections

Intensity features HDMI-in for connecting to cameras and digital set-top boxes for the highest quality capture. Get higher quality capture from HDV cameras by capturing direct and bypassing the HDV compression chip, for high quality video, captured direct from the CCD. Because edit software cannot play back to HDV cameras for monitoring, Intensity is ideal to use for monitoring uncompressed HD or HDV and even DV edits on the latest big screen televisions and video projectors by connecting to the built in HDMI-out.Everybody knows HDV tape is going to be c**p compared to the LIVE native HDMI uncompressed output. I thought I explained that in my post above but I assumed everyone would go to the Blackmagic Design site to get the details.

This is a revolutionary LIVE video capture and recording system for cheap access to uncompressed HD - little if next to nothing to do with the fact these cameras can record HDV.

I'll be talking in person to the Blackmagic people tomorrow at MacWorld Expo and report more when I get back Friday night. But as far as I can see this is a HUGE LOOPHOLE in the pro HD recording acquisition cost of entry the pro manufacturing groups probably never envisioned.

Multimedia
Jan 11, 2007, 02:23 PM
Spent the last several hours with the Blackmagic Design folks. I'm writing this from the show press room. The executive summary is as follows:

It is possible to use the Sony Compression-Decomperession Chip that immediately follows the 1920x1080 capture CCD(s) or CMOS(s) but precedes the HDV section of HDV camcorders with HDMI output to get uncompressed 4:2:2 video from those cameras into a Mac Pro and soon dual core G5 PowerMacs with PCIe as well.

The Intensity HDMI i/o PCIe card for Mac Pro and soon dual core g5's (bug in the firmware) will include a three camera solution by NAB using three cards - one for each camera - to be called On-Air 3.0.

The uncompressed HDV can come best from live and almost as good off the HDV recordings - including all HDV recordings made on non-HDMI out capable camcorders - i.e. all HDV recordings since day one. What comes out the HDMI port bypasses the entire HDV section of the camcorder and comes directly from the capture processor off the tape in true 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080 that the HDV section outputs from the FireWire port. The HDMI output is true 4:2:2 uncompressed HD and as it goes into the Mac Pro and soon Quad and dual core G5 PowerMacs, a superior codec is used to reduce the file size but provide much better frame accurate rendering of the recordings than can be garnered from the FireWire HDV signal.

I want to get back to the show so I'll stop here. I think the Blackmagicdesign Intensity solution (http://blackmagic-design.com/) is one of the the most exciting revolutionary engineering achievements in the history of video communications.

I wonder if the 8 core Mac Pro will have HDMI input(s) added to it. You need to fill up all 4 PCIe slots for the 3 camera On-Air 3.0 live studio switching system.

brisully
Jan 11, 2007, 06:04 PM
Spent the last several hours with the Blackmagic Design folks. I'm writing this from the show press room. The executive summary is as follows:

It is possible to use the Sony Compression-Decomperession Chip that immediately follows the 1920x1080 capture CCD(s) or CMOS(s) but precedes the HDV section of HDV camcorders with HDMI output to get uncompressed 4:2:2 video from those cameras into a Mac Pro and soon dual core G5 PowerMacs with PCIe as well.

The Intensity HDMI i/o PCIe card for Mac Pro and soon dual core g5's (bug in the firmware) will include a three camera solution by NAB using three cards - one for each camera - to be called On-Air 3.0.

The uncompressed HDV can come best from live and almost as good off the HDV recordings - including all HDV recordings made on non-HDMI out capable camcorders - i.e. all HDV recordings since day one. What comes out the HDMI port bypasses the entire HDV section of the camcorder and comes directly from the capture processor off the tape in true 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080 that the HDV section outputs from the FireWire port. The HDMI output is true 4:2:2 uncompressed HD and as it goes into the Mac Pro and soon Quad and dual core G5 PowerMacs, a superior codec is used to reduce the file size but provide much better frame accurate rendering of the recordings than can be garnered from the FireWire HDV signal.

I want to get back to the show so I'll stop here. I think the Blackmagicdesign Intensity solution (http://blackmagic-design.com/) is one of the the most exciting revolutionary engineering achievements in the history of video communications.

I wonder if the 8 core Mac Pro will have HDMI input(s) added to it. You need to fill up all 4 PCIe slots for the 3 camera On-Air 3.0 live studio switching system.

Can we stay on topic here? If I wanted to read about HD video cameras, I'll go to the Digital Video forum.:mad:

AppleIntelRock
Jan 11, 2007, 06:06 PM
Can we stay on topic here? If I wanted to read about HD video cameras, I'll go to the Digital Video forum.:mad:

Agreed. I was a little taken aback when I saw this very long-winded, technical post about Digital Video in my inbox. What perplexed me even more was when I realized it was in the 8-core Mac Pro thread. :confused:

FF_productions
Jan 11, 2007, 06:08 PM
Can we stay on topic here? If I wanted to read about HD video cameras, I'll go to the Digital Video forum.:mad:

He can't make new threads so he has to reply to these topics about the 8 core Mac Pro (A pro machine, which uses pro hardware which is what he is talkin about).

View his profile and look at the last time he made a thread. :p

Sticking to the topic...I think sometime in the next few weeks we will see an 8 Core Mac Pro. I will probably be wrong because I thought back in November that we would no doubt get our hands on an 8 core and that didn't happen.

Multimedia
Jan 11, 2007, 06:21 PM
He can't make new threads so he has to reply to these topics about the 8 core Mac Pro (A pro machine, which uses pro hardware which is what he is talkin about).

View his profile and look at the last time he made a thread. :p

Sticking to the topic...I think sometime in the next few weeks we will see an 8 Core Mac Pro. I will probably be wrong because I thought back in November that we would no doubt get our hands on an 8 core and that didn't happen.8 Core Mac Pro will be the best way to take advantage of the Intensity - On-Air 3.0 solution so I thought I was on topic. Sorry. :)

jesteraver
Jan 11, 2007, 08:42 PM
One thing when will there be Blu-ray drives in Mac Books / Pro or iMac's?

Also is Apple going to keep the Macbook screen 13.3" ?

yipster222
Jan 12, 2007, 12:02 PM
I am very disappointed in Apple for not releasing the 8 core Mac Pro during Mac World. Iphone is nice but it isn't shipping till June.

Multimedia
Jan 12, 2007, 12:08 PM
8 Core Mac Pro will be the best way to take advantage of the Intensity - On-Air 3.0 solution so I thought I was on topic. Sorry. :)Agreed. I was a little taken aback when I saw this very long-winded, technical post about Digital Video in my inbox. What perplexed me even more was when I realized it was in the 8-core Mac Pro thread. :confused:That was the Short winded version. :eek: :p :D :)

MrTed
Jan 12, 2007, 12:18 PM
Don't you think we'll have a macpro update soon ?
My source said to me "not prior april-may", it was 3 weeks ago...I'm afraid
he/she was right.
I really need to buy a very very powerfull mac now or at the beginning of february max...
What do you think, guys ?

Swarmlord
Jan 12, 2007, 12:24 PM
Don't you think we'll have a macpro update soon ?
My source said to me "not prior april-may", it was 3 weeks ago...I'm afraid
he/she was right.
I really need to buy a very very powerfull mac now or at the beginning of february max...
What do you think, guys ?

Unless you are writing and compiling software of your own that depends on threads and symetric multiprocessing, I don't think that waiting is going to buy you any more computer with the additional cores.

PmattF
Jan 12, 2007, 12:28 PM
Don't you think we'll have a macpro update soon ?
My source said to me "not prior april-may", it was 3 weeks ago...I'm afraid
he/she was right.
I really need to buy a very very powerfull mac now or at the beginning of february max...
What do you think, guys ?

If you wait until February, and there is still no update, so you buy then, when the new Mac finally does come out you will have owned a non-obsoleted Mac for that much shorter time.

So either buy today, or commit to waiting until the next revision, no matter how long it takes.

I am buying today.

Unless I change my mind over lunch.

MrTed
Jan 12, 2007, 01:03 PM
Unless you are writing and compiling software of your own that depends on threads and symetric multiprocessing, I don't think that waiting is going to buy you any more computer with the additional cores.

I use Logic Pro for mixing music. I really need power for this (lots of plugin and virtual instruments). Today logic is optimized for 4 cores. And it's an Apple software, so when an octocore macpro will be available a logic pro update will follow...

Multimedia
Jan 12, 2007, 02:19 PM
Unless you are writing and compiling software of your own that depends on threads and symetric multiprocessing, I don't think that waiting is going to buy you any more computer with the additional cores.From the Pressroom of Macworld Expo.

I spoke with the author of Toast 8 - now shipping - and it uses all 4 cores of a Mac Pro as well as of a Quad G5 - much more optimized to use all 4 cores in each model - and will use all 8 cores of a Dual Clovertown Mac Pro when it ships IF Apple doesn't do something to the OS to mess that up and if they do, it will be fixed shortly after release and use all 8 cores FOR SURE.

So you are misaken Swarmlord. 8 cores are for everyone except those who never use Toast.

PmattF
Jan 13, 2007, 11:49 AM
So either buy today, or commit to waiting until the next revision, no matter how long it takes.

I am buying today.

Unless I change my mind over lunch.

I did not change my mind over lunch -- I ordered one yesterday. 2.66, X1900, 4 gigs of RAM, 160 gig drive (which I will supplement with two Maxline Pro 500's in a RAID 0 from Newegg).

I ordered from http://www.powermax.com -- they are on Oregon, and hence have no sales tax, which is an 8.8% discount for me here in Seattle. Plus they gave me a great deal on the AppleCare. If you call them, ask for Maiya -- I worked with her, she was great, and of course they are on commission.

Multimedia
Jan 13, 2007, 01:13 PM
Don't you think we'll have a macpro update soon ?
My source said to me "not prior april-may", it was 3 weeks ago...I'm afraid
he/she was right.
I really need to buy a very very powerfull mac now or at the beginning of february max...
What do you think, guys ?I know. We all do. But we're just going to have to be patient a little longer. I'm thinking at this point we might as well wait for it to ship with Leopard, and perhaps that's the only way it will ship i.e. 8 core may not ship until Leopard is shipping with it.

One of the principle delays is that the Dual Clovertown will run best when supported by the Stoakley-Seaburg multi-core management chipset from Intel (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1). And that isn't supposed to start shipping until this month at the soonest. I'm resigned to thinking we may have to wait until April 16th at NAB before all is revealed. Pundits at Macworld Expo said they are now thinking Leopard may ship just after that on Friday April 27 as that's the first Friday after NAB and we all know that, historically, new OS X's always ship on Fridays to maximize opening weekend sales.

Any sooner will be a pleasant surprise to me. :)

BiikeMike
Jan 14, 2007, 09:29 AM
Maybe I'll just get a Mac Mini to tide me over until these new machines come out!

JeffDM
Jan 14, 2007, 10:00 AM
Don't you think we'll have a macpro update soon ?
My source said to me "not prior april-may", it was 3 weeks ago...I'm afraid
he/she was right.
I really need to buy a very very powerfull mac now or at the beginning of february max...

April-May is around the NAB2007 time frame. Apple tends to update some bit of pro hardware and pro video software at that show. As such, I would expect to see something Monday April 16, the first day of exhibition. I would assume that Mac Pro is a likely update canidate.

If I had to make a call, I think that Mac Pro and a new Final Cut Studio will be released. I am more certain of FCS because a major new version of Final Cut is released every two years at NAB, and this year is when it is due. I'm thinking that might help Mac Pro because FCS might be better optimized to use more processors and a new Mac Pro would help them show that off.

The current units are very powerful, and there may not be a good short-term advantage to an eight-way yet, but that depends on how optimized your software is.

jesteraver
Jan 14, 2007, 10:05 PM
Is there any chance in hell Apple will switch back to IBM (Lenovo) processors?

Chris here
Jan 15, 2007, 01:08 PM
Is there any chance in hell Apple will switch back to IBM (Lenovo) processors?

Yeah, I heard it's gonna happen tomorrow or the day after. Unfortunately, all UB apps are not compatible though. Never mind. :)

Multimedia
Jan 16, 2007, 10:19 AM
Maybe I'll just get a Mac Mini to tide me over until these new machines come out!Great idea except for one more nagging thing - mini will likely go Core 2 Duo any week now and that'll be a Doh! moment for you if you just bought a Core Duo one. Moreover, in the Spring the Intel integrated Graphics chipset will improve and go into a Core 2 Duo mini with Leopard and iLife '07 in it. Now won't that be a hoot! :)

I say let's all just hybernate with what we have until April's NAB showers of new stuff and be thrilled with the new May Mac Eco System Flowers that will blossom then. :D ;) :)

psingh01
Jan 16, 2007, 07:53 PM
Is there any chance in hell Apple will switch back to IBM (Lenovo) processors?

The processors are IBM. Lenovo only bought the laptop/desktop business, not the chips :)

Lord Nerdos
Jan 17, 2007, 01:16 AM
Hello everyone! I've been a regular visitor to macrumors since I got my 12" G4 powerbook, almost four years ago:rolleyes:
I've been following this post, balanced on a knife edge as to whether to get the mac pro quad core. A couple of times I've picked up the phone to order and almost gone through with it...
It seems to me that the latest we will have to wait for the 8-core is mid April (NAB). Anything earlier than that will be a bonus. Perhaps we should have a countdown to NAB???
I want an 8 core mac pro because I want to future proof it as much as possible. If I had the money I would have been upgrading on a much more regular basis. I am looking to keep my next apple for at least 4 to 5 years - time enough for the software to catch up with the multiple cores.
If the 8-core comes out sooner then all the better.

BiikeMike
Jan 17, 2007, 05:24 AM
I want an 8 core mac pro because I want to future proof it as much as possible. If I had the money I would have been upgrading on a much more regular basis. I am looking to keep my next apple for at least 4 to 5 years - time enough for the software to catch up with the multiple cores.
If the 8-core comes out sooner then all the better.


You 'n me both!

mperkins37
Jan 17, 2007, 01:40 PM
I am a Graphic Artist & have been doing more & more 3D & Multimedia, as well as being a musician & recording to my mac.
I NEED An 8 CORE MACPRO!!! I am dissappointed that the announcement hasn't been made. They had no problem announcing the IPhone 4 months premature. How good are the chances we get tossed a bone @ NAAM
(Musicians & Music producers need 8 cores too!) they can then announce delivery date in Feb-Mar so we get stoakley & new OS.

Feeling short changed, Trying to get by on my wife's IMac 800 mhz since my G3 300 went down.

As you can see from above post I am not kidding one bit,
Several days to render movies from Premiere, Compressing for days!
3D Rendering for a week @ a time while trying to do anything in the background.

I NEED THIS 8 CORE MACHINE BAD!!!!!

mperkins37
long time thread follower
first time poster.

Multimedia
Jan 17, 2007, 02:09 PM
I am a Graphic Artist & have been doing more & more 3D & Multimedia, as well as being a musician & recording to my mac.
I NEED An 8 CORE MACPRO!!! I am dissappointed that the announcement hasn't been made. They had no problem announcing the IPhone 4 months premature. How good are the chances we get tossed a bone @ NAAM
(Musicians & Music producers need 8 cores too!) they can then announce delivery date in Feb-Mar so we get stoakley & new OS.

Feeling short changed, Trying to get by on my wife's IMac 800 mhz since my G3 300 went down.

As you can see from above post I am not kidding one bit,
Several days to render movies from Premiere, Compressing for days!
3D Rendering for a week @ a time while trying to do anything in the background.

I NEED THIS 8 CORE MACHINE BAD!!!!!

long time thread follower - first time poster.Thanks for finally posting. Sometimes it feels like there are only a half dozen of us who know we need 8 cores. So every new voice helps the morale.

NAMM hasn't traditionally been a place where Apple did much new announcing. I'm afraid NAB is the likely target date for everything to be announced. Combined with Blackmagicdesign's HDMI i/o Intensity (http://blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/) solution to low cost HD production, the 8 core will have massive impact on the future of broadcast HD production as well as future syndicated HD like Opera and Ellen shows.

I would love to be wrong though. Tomorrow is the opening day of the 4 day NAMM (National Association of Musical Manufacturers) show in Anaheim through Sunday.

DavidM
Jan 17, 2007, 02:51 PM
I am a Graphic Artist & have been doing more & more 3D & Multimedia, as well as being a musician & recording to my mac.
I NEED An 8 CORE MACPRO!!! I am dissappointed that the announcement hasn't been made. They had no problem announcing the IPhone 4 months premature. How good are the chances we get tossed a bone @ NAAM
(Musicians & Music producers need 8 cores too!) they can then announce delivery date in Feb-Mar so we get stoakley & new OS.

Feeling short changed, Trying to get by on my wife's IMac 800 mhz since my G3 300 went down.

As you can see from above post I am not kidding one bit,
Several days to render movies from Premiere, Compressing for days!
3D Rendering for a week @ a time while trying to do anything in the background.

I NEED THIS 8 CORE MACHINE BAD!!!!!

mperkins37
long time thread follower
first time poster.

Dude - If you're doing graphic design on a G3 300 you don't need the 8 core bad, you just need a modern computer! Go get the MacPro, you'll be blown away by the speed increase over what you're using now and stop fretting about the 8 core. There aren't many apps that take advantage of all the cores anyway, so you won't get the advantages you think you should get. Sheesh, buy a new computer already . . .

mperkins37
Jan 17, 2007, 03:14 PM
First of all, The G3 died two years ago, & I have been using my wife's Imac, 800 mhz as well as her Mac Lab @ Carl Hayden HS Where she is a teacher.
When I have render specific stuff I have a small renderfarm, but I have limited use. I do need an 8 core mac, because I multitask the hell out of a computer every day & will be able to have an effective way of doing so without waiting a minute & a half lag time. I used to wait on the dual G5 @ my old job all the time with rendering, checking mail, Photoshop filter, Illustrator auto trace, Virtual PC, Autocad running on it, ITunes, Burning a DVD. DID I MENTION THAT I ALSO PLAN ON RECORDING A LOT -16 CHANNELS FIREWIRE DIRECT.
Yes I should've bought a new machine, But being a freelancer money is usually tight & the wife & I bought a new car 4 years ago & A new house & Appliances 2 years ago, so it has been allocated to other things,
like landscaping & AC System & Garage Door etc.
Having said that, I have a project that I am finishing up in the next month or so that will afford me an opportunity to buy the best & give me a well deserved round of software upgrades as well. so I am hungry for a performance machine that takes care of my
•Rendering needs
•Music Production Needs
•Multitasking Needs
The 8 Core should more than fit the bill & I won't be in need for a better machine for another 4-5 years.
Then I'll be taking flack about why I haven't upgraded every year.
Reason: some of us are not swimming in extra income.
Mperkins37

Multimedia
Jan 18, 2007, 10:40 PM
Dude - If you're doing graphic design on a G3 300 you don't need the 8 core bad, you just need a modern computer! Go get the MacPro, you'll be blown away by the speed increase over what you're using now and stop fretting about the 8 core. There aren't many apps that take advantage of all the cores anyway, so you won't get the advantages you think you should get. Sheesh, buy a new computer already . . .Dude, you have no business judging another member's needs without intimate knowledge of their multi-tasking workflow. :rolleyes:I have a project that I am finishing up in the next month or so that will afford me an opportunity to buy the best & give me a well deserved round of software upgrades as well. so I am hungry for a performance machine that takes care of my
•Rendering needs
•Music Production Needs
•Multitasking Needs
The 8 Core should more than fit the bill & I won't be in need for a better machine for another 4-5 years.
Then I'll be taking flack about why I haven't upgraded every year.
Reason: some of us are not swimming in extra income.
Mperkins37I find it amazing that we each have to justify our individual cases for why we know we need an 8 core Mac Pro to the Core Police here. It's as if there is a certain class of list viewers who simply cannot imagine how to hose an 8 core Mac and always want to tell each of us why we don't need one. :rolleyes:

jtt
Jan 21, 2007, 05:19 PM
Dude, you have no business judging another member's needs without intimate knowledge of their multi-tasking workflow. :rolleyes:I find it amazing that we each have to justify our individual cases for why we know we need an 8 core Mac Pro to the Core Police here. It's as if there is a certain class of list viewers who simply cannot imagine how to hose an 8 core Mac and always want to tell each of us why we don't need one. :rolleyes:

MM, you are in the boat of one who doesn't NEED 8 cores but would like a machine that is going to make your work day, I mean hobby, move a long a little bit faster. I have a feeling that if the base model was $20k, you would buy one just to try it out because you could.

I know rich Mac folks and large video corporations still getting by just fine with their DP G5's and not complaining one bit. What you do is going to take a long time no matter how fast the machine is. But I guess you can watch a couple of extra hours of TV every night, huh?

Multimedia
Jan 21, 2007, 11:24 PM
MM, you are in the boat of one who doesn't NEED 8 cores but would like a machine that is going to make your work day, I mean hobby, move a long a little bit faster. I have a feeling that if the base model was $20k, you would buy one just to try it out because you could.

I know rich Mac folks and large video corporations still getting by just fine with their DP G5's and not complaining one bit. What you do is going to take a long time no matter how fast the machine is. But I guess you can watch a couple of extra hours of TV every night, huh?I'm sure you have no clue what boat I am in. I am neither rich nor willing to pay $20k for an 8 core Mac Pro. Need is personally perceived. By your definition NOBODY NEEDS an 8 core Mac Pro. I don't subscribe to your definition of the word "NEED".

GameMusicMaker
Jan 22, 2007, 12:35 PM
Who's to say who does and does not NEED an 8-core machine?

Please don't tell people what they need or don't need, unless they ask, "Do I need 8 cores?"

For example, I may want to purchase an 8-core mac pro to run run numerical weather prediction models on. Do you have any idea how much power those need? Sure, maybe it is kind of like processing some HD video for a while, but it needs to be run in a very timely fashion, considering that I may need to run this model 4x daily. 8 cores used the correct way can cut that processing time in HALF, compared to the current Mac pro.

As you can see, for some of us, these extra cores are critical. No, I won't perish without an additional 4 cores, but why use 4 when I can use 8?

patrick0brien
Jan 22, 2007, 06:51 PM
Some may not need 8 cores now - but we all will in the future...

... stage set, config picked out, six year old Quicksilver, Video needs, Music needs, Photoshop needs, and 3D needs, hole burning in pocket...

kromekat
Jan 23, 2007, 07:26 AM
Well I definitely could use the 8 Cores right now for 3D rendering - the current crop of Quad 3Ghz run approx 2.5 times faster than my Dual 2.5 G5, but it doesn't make sense to buy until the range is updated, which according to a reliable source, could be as early as Feb 20th - so fingers crossed that IS the case! ;)

Hoopy
Jan 23, 2007, 09:03 AM
I surf the net, and sometimes I listen to audio CDs. Do I need an 8 core Mac?

The answer is, YES! Because I also do tons of 3D animation. 8 cores will give me time to take walks in the park, learn a foreign language, talk to my wife, etc. Anything that can improve my workflow will be welcomed. I have a great G5 Quad and the current Mac Pro lineup has not tempted me.

It does seem to me that Apple is doing what Sony did 20 years ago, neglecting the pro user in favor of shifting containers of consumer goods. I doubt Steve Jobs is too worried about when / if there will be an 8 core Mac. Apple is now the iPhone and iPod company, Macs are just a sideline for them.

If the rumors are true, that it is possible to run Mac OSX on a PC, then maybe I'll be giving Dell a call...

Come on, Apple!

Multimedia
Jan 23, 2007, 11:03 AM
Been told by the Toast author at MacWorld that Toast 8 (http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html) is ready to use all 8 cores of the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro and will use all 4 cores of the current Mac Pro. That alone is an excellent reason to "need" an 8 core Mac Pro if you use Toast much.

But I'm sorry to report, after receiving Toast 8 UB yesterday, that it has not been modified-improved to use more than about 2 cores on the Quad G5 - evidence developers don't want to bother going back to make significant changes to their PPC code now that Intel Macs are shipping. :(

Interesting to note that while Toast 8 supports Blu-ray Disc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc) it DOES NOT support HD DVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD). Looks like someone at Sonic decided HD-DVD is going to lose the format wars so why bother?Well I definitely could use the 8 Cores right now for 3D rendering - the current crop of Quad 3Ghz run approx 2.5 times faster than my Dual 2.5 G5, but it doesn't make sense to buy until the range is updated, which according to a reliable source, could be as early as Feb 20th - so fingers crossed that IS the case! ;)2.5 times is a LOT. Is that for a specific 3D application and if so which one? My own tests against what I use put the Quad Mac Pro only slightly faster than my Quad G5 - certainly nothing close to 2.5 times faster, more like 1.3 times faster. Am I overlooking something?

My bad, I misread Dual 2.5 as Quad 2.5. Sorry for the mistake folks. Like I said to begin with, Mac Pro is only one-third faster than a Quad G5 at best.