Would you buy another Mac Pro? [Archive]

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 30, 2008, 10:04 AM

I wrote in another thread on this forum that if Apple doesn't unFUBAR this graphics card situation I would be selling my now obsolete Mac Pro, bought in October, just 6 months ago.
With that said, regardless of whether this problem is resolved, I'm never buying another "Pro" Mac computer. Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, it doesn't matter.
Here's why:
Apple has been in the business of marketing proprietary software and hardware for years. Want to run OS X? You have to buy a Mac. Want to listen to music purchased from iTunes? You have to buy an iPod. There are ways around this proprietary lock down, but they are difficult and annoying. So, when Apple came out and said the Mac Pro is the "most upgradeable" Mac, we all should have heeded caution. It was a smoke and mirrors act to lure high-performance PC users to switch to Mac. The trick worked on me. I've been an Apple and Mac fan for decades. But I've always reserved a place next to my desk for a PC tower to run games and processor heavy apps...until last year when I switched to a Mac Pro. I bought into the BS thinking I could upgrade anything easily. I thought the expensive price tag was worth it considering it would last me 3 years, easily. Newer/larger HD? No prob. Blu-Ray drive? Easy. More RAM? Sure thing. Need a faster GPU? Plug & Play!
Mac fans, here are the TRUE colors of Apple: In a sneaky attempt to sell more Macs, they are making it impossible to upgrade the upgradeable Mac. Need a new GPU? Sorry, you can't run 64-bit EFI, even though your hardware is fully capable of it. What happens when they start offering a Blue Ray drive for the Mac Pro? Will the firmware support 1st Gen Mac Pros? What else will they lock down in future refreshes?
In January, just 3 months after spending $4k+ on a new computer, I was told I can't upgrade my GPU. THIS video card is supposed to last me the life of my NEW Mac Pro? What PC user ever heard of NEVER upgrading a video card in their high-performance tower? It's absurd. It's embarrassing to tell PC users about this. Do you think they will switch NOW, Steve Jobs, having heard my (and thousands of others') tale?
Bottom line: I'm never buying a "Pro" Mac product ever again. I will buy the Mini for desktop use and the MacBook (the white one) for portable use. I can always drop in a faster processor, bigger/faster HD, and more RAM if I want to..no firmware update required. The Mini and the MacBook are a lot cheaper than the "Pro" Macs. By the time they are obsolete I won't be complaining about it because I will have gotten my money's worth. But how can I justify the $4k+ I spent on a Mac Pro in October becoming obsolete in January of this year, 3 months later????? I can't, and it's pathetic. It makes me sick. This MacFanBoy is sticking to the cheap, low-end, bottom-dollar Macs for my Mac experience. I'm already looking into buying a new high-end PC for the games and processor heavy apps. I don't know what the next generation of Mac Pros will do to the early 2008 Mac Pros. One can only speculate, but I bet they will be screaming up a storm in a thread not unlike this one.
I DO KNOW this: no one, NO ONE, can tell me I can't upgrade a PC. Someone will always offer the driver or the firmware update when a new product comes along. Until Steve Jobs figures this out and fixes it for the Mac, I'll take my chances with Vista for my "heavy" computer workflow. I mean really, doesn't Jobs remember the 90s?

c:\windows

Mar 30, 2008, 10:22 AM

Great post. I agree macs are great but if they want to compete with the PC's they need to be truly open. I totally hate iTunes but I am forced to use it because it is the only software that works with the iPod and apple store. I like the Ipod I just hate the software.

If you are a gamer you will upgrade the video card every 18 months. A pro machine should be able to do this.

miniConvert

Mar 30, 2008, 10:31 AM

I would buy another Mac Pro in a heartbeat. It's the best computer I've ever owned.

I'm sorry your Mac Pro is 'obsolete' because you can't get a new graphics card. I've got the original 2.66 Mac Pro and it's far from obsolete - very far, in fact - because it still does absolutely everything that I purchased it to do.

If graphics cards are your thing then, despite the ridiculous situation with Mac Pro graphics cards upgrades, you really should be using a generic PC and anyone here could have told you that from the start.

c073186

Mar 30, 2008, 10:37 AM

As long as I can afford it I will keep buying Macs.

Hmac

Mar 30, 2008, 10:45 AM

I look forward to having an 8800GT that will work in my "obsolete" 3.0ghz 4-core, but that's mostly because I'm kind of a hardware "enthusiast". In the meantime, my "obsolete" machine reliably does everything I want it to do, and does it really, really fast.

"If they want to compete with PC's"....? Hmmmm...from looking at sales numbers and market share, and from comparing my Mac Pro to any PC I've ever built, it looks to me like the ARE competing with PC's, and very effectively.

Mr.Noisy

Mar 30, 2008, 10:48 AM

I agree with miniconvert, he said it all,

I Love my Mac Pro, I'll run it till it Die's and then......... I'll buy another one ;)

GoKyu

Mar 30, 2008, 10:51 AM

Totally agree with miniConvert - this is THE best computer I've ever owned. Upgrading the graphics card isn't a big deal to me, because I don't play games that require it (I mostly stick to using MAME - hey, I prefer arcade games :))

Most of my graphics work is using Photoshop and Lightroom anyway, so 256 megs of video memory is more than enough.

For me the "upgrade factor" is being able to add new hard drives (something the iMac won't let you do) and add RAM (lots of it...64 bit means you aren't limited to 3 gigs like I had on my PC.)

Another nice benefit of the Mac Pro - the thing is SILENT. Sure, you hear about "Noise reduced" PC cases....I had one with my latest PC, and yes it was a lot quieter than previous models...but compared to the Mac Pro, it still sounded like I was at a airport. The only time I ever hear this computer is if it's spinning up a CD or DVD.

This is the computer I've always wanted, and with my discount it came out to be around $2600 - very reasonable for the kind of power it has, for the lack of noise, and for the fact that I won't need to replace it for 4-5 years....and even when I do, it'll have great resale value, offsetting some of the price on a new one!

-Bryan

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2008, 10:52 AM

Want to run OS X? You have to buy a Mac... ...What happens when they start offering a Blue Ray drive for the Mac Pro? Will the firmware support 1st Gen Mac Pros?... ...I mean really, doesn't Jobs remember the 90s?

1) And look how terribly they're doing with that in terms of profit.
2) For all intents and purposes, yes; as Apple would need to throw out all of Blu-ray's frigtarded DRM as a general update, even though they'll only make drives available for the Mac Pro.
3) What happened in the '90s? Oh, yes. Gil Emilio nearly killed Apple by allowing clones to run the Mac OS.

Steve has NEVER liked the idea of a user-upgradable system. That's why he made the Mac 512k an all-in-one. The Mac Pro is a breakthrough in this field. Give him some time to get older and more complacent and we'll have true upgradability. Better yet, wait until the Microtards support EFI in their OS and then the rest of the mainstream graphics market will work with a Mac as ATI/nVidia conform to the standard.

Infrared

Mar 30, 2008, 11:15 AM

Mac fans, here are the TRUE colors of Apple: In a sneaky attempt to sell more Macs, they are making it impossible to upgrade the upgradeable Mac. Need a new GPU? Sorry, you can't run 64-bit EFI, even though your hardware is fully capable of it.

"TRUE" in capitals and then a mass of speculation.

I would bet you know next to nothing about 64-bit EFI
implementations and what is involved in writing EFI code.

You have absolutely no idea what decisions were made
and what the technical challenges were[1]. Only people
on the inside really know this.

You've taken your desire for a new GPU and spun it into
a fantasy reality.

[1] Writing drivers and firmware is insanely difficult. And
one missed bug can bring down the OS.

Eric Piercey

Mar 30, 2008, 11:16 AM

Mac Pro's are awesome for graphics and video professionals. If you wanted a gaming rig you should have went PC, although honestly how many games out there will utilize the latest and greatest features of the cutting edge cards? My MP runs the games I play really well on WinXP. Regardless, good luck to you. I do video work and my MP tears it up even with the ATI card.

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 11:23 AM

I agree with miniConvert and Infrared.

When I feel my machine needs to be upgraded, a new Mac Pro will be on the top of my shopping list.

cohibadad

Mar 30, 2008, 11:35 AM

I think your major mistake was to think Apple thinks of the Mac Pro as a gaming machine. It isn't. I can see why you would hope it would be though. If you looked at the history of Mac Pro and PowerMac you would have seen that GPU upgradeability has never been on par with PCs. If you want a gaming rig, you should do as you plan and get a PC and avoid any further frustrations. Personally, I love my Mac Pro. It is a dream machine. I use consoles for gaming and that is the way the gaming world is going.

TheThirdMan

Mar 30, 2008, 11:44 AM

Apple has been in the business of marketing proprietary software and hardware for years. Want to run OS X? You have to buy a Mac. Want to listen to music purchased from iTunes? You have to buy an iPod. There are ways around this proprietary lock down, but they are difficult and annoying. So, when Apple came out and said the Mac Pro is the "most upgradeable" Mac, we all should have heeded caution. It was a smoke and mirrors act to lure high-performance PC users to switch to Mac.

Those are the reasons why mac is far better than pc and why pc is riddled with substandard, unstable, inefficient and mediocre software. The fact that apple have a virtual lockdown on the mac world means they are the best computers.- "Those who want to make great software make their own hardware"

Why are you so annoyed about the graphics? Do you use it for games? The mac pro isnt a gaming machine, hence the fully buffered dimms and xeon processors.

I'll take my chances with Vista for my "heavy" computer workflow.

Using vista for heavy computing is a joke. You should use unix if you're serious about it.

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 30, 2008, 11:56 AM

Those are the reasons why mac is far better than pc and why pc is riddled with substandard, unstable, inefficient and mediocre software. The fact that apple have a virtual lockdown on the mac world means they are the best computers....

Interesting post. You could use your comments to make a metaphorical argument for a fascist dictatorship. :D

rumbletum

Mar 30, 2008, 03:04 PM

I bought my first Mac Pro last August (previously owned an iMac and MBP), mainly because I liked the (limited) upgradeability it offered. Even though I am very happy with the machine I have been very disappointed with the fiasco regarding the new graphics card.

I would consider one in the future, but am more likely to go back to using an iMac I reckon.

lampliter

Mar 30, 2008, 03:38 PM

Man you got guts macfanboy,if the average mac user new where you live I bet you would go missing just like alot of posts saying anything negative about apple.The facts are that you are exactly right,but you are wasting your time speaking to mac users,washed brains and all.Everything you have said about your pro is exactly the same with mine.My 3000 dollar pro is not half the computer as say a new minne or an imac when you consider price.Actually an imac is much more everything than my 1 year old pro.I have said here a dozen times that my pro with the 7300 is useless compared to other units a third the price,PC or mac.I know ,I know,the 7300 is the best card in the world and in a mac pro the combination makes the system the fastest work station on the planet.There I saved those of you grinding your teeth a post.Would I buy another pro ,yes,if apple fixes this.But I think a PC is going to get a test drive next time.If this pro was upgradeable I wouldn`t need to buy another one LOL.

Mackilroy

Mar 30, 2008, 04:06 PM

I would definitely buy another Mac Pro, because I love mine, and even though it isn't the latest and greatest, you can add an HD2600 XT, and Apple did say Nvidia was working on introducing an 8800 GT for pre-2008 Mac Pros. Maybe they were lying, maybe it's just taking awhile due to kinks that need to be worked out, but this is still an awesome machine, and having two would mean I could do twice as much as I do now.

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 04:56 PM

GotPro

Mar 30, 2008, 05:12 PM

Not just yes but HELL yes.

Even if I wanted a PC and not a Mac I'd STILL buy a Mac Pro and ONLY run XP/VISTA on it.

Why?

1:) PRICE. Its truly a steal. Price out the parts on building a PC just as bad-a$$ed as the Mac Pro and its almost 2x as much... Heck... Just 2 2.8 Quad Cpus and a dual CPU mb for said CPUS costs near $2300ish... And the whole system from Apple with Education discount is only $2500!!!

2:) Want a windows only gaming system? Its STILL a steal... Buy it... ONLY run Windows in it... And buy any damn Video Card you want for it!

Not sure why people get so upset... Kinda like being pissed at Ford because they didnt drop a Chevy LS7 motor in a mustang.

If you want a Chevy LS7 motor so freaking bad go buy the car that the motor you want comes in... Don't go whining to the other car companies fan forums that you are upset with their companies because their cars don't have the motor YOU want.

Go buy the thing that makes YOU happy and just let us do the same ;-)

No offense intended, btw!

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 30, 2008, 05:23 PM

Not sure why people get so upset...

Interesting how many people saying this have early '08 Mac Pros with 8800s. :rolleyes:

Also, that has my nomination for "worst analogy." No offense, btw.

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 05:26 PM

Interesting how many people saying this have early '08 Mac Pros with 8800s. :rolleyes:

Just to clarify. I had a 1st gen Mac Pro (4 cores) up until about two weeks ago when I upgraded to an early 2008 Mac Pro (8 cores).

GotPro

Mar 30, 2008, 05:27 PM

None taken ;-)

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 30, 2008, 05:28 PM

Just to clarify. I had a 1st gen Mac Pro (4 cores) up until about two weeks ago when I upgraded to an early 2008 Mac Pro (8 cores).

LOL. Thanks man, you've proven my point. Instead of upgrading your "upgradable" Mac, you just bought a new one and called it upgrading. Good for you. :rolleyes:

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 05:57 PM

LOL. Thanks man, you've proven my point. Instead of upgrading your "upgradable" Mac, you just bought a new one and called it upgrading. Good for you. :rolleyes:

To buy two X5365 3GHz quad-core Xeons from Newegg would've cost me over $2500 at the time. I sold my old system for $2000. Bought this system from Amazon for $2750 - $150 (rebate) = $2600. What makes more sense to you?

TheThirdMan

Mar 30, 2008, 06:20 PM

I always thought apple marketed the MP as the most customisable mac, rather than the most upgradeable one.:rolleyes: Nothing on their site indicates upgradeable graphics as a selling point, it's merely the variety available with a mac pro.

http://img36.picoodle.com/img/img36/4/3/30/f_Picture1m_60701b3.png

dreamof3d

Mar 30, 2008, 07:26 PM

My Mac Pro brings me joy every day. Sure I would like it faster for my 3d rendering. The fact is, Intel will most likely have an 8 core xeon for the new Mac Jan '09. Yes I would buy another one. I may just hold out till next year, and see what Intel does for those Macs. The way technology is going, we'll never be able to keep up anyway. I'm going to keep this one, and network it to my new machine, whether I get it next week or next year, I will buy one.
My ATI card does all it needs to except in my Linux tinkering.

Can't wait to do a network rendering..:rolleyes: :apple:

GotPro

Mar 30, 2008, 07:49 PM

Now that I'm actually at a computer and not using my iPhone... I just want to touch on this a bit more.

I personally think that the Mac Pro is one HECK of an upgradeable machine.

Let's see... what can you upgrade out of the box from Apple (in a standard 2.8 Octo 2gb 320 config):

Want more hard drive space? Add any SATA hard drive type or size right out of the box. 4TB of upgradeability. Not too shabby.

Want external ESATA capabilities? Upgrade with a $22 part available online... plug it into the 2 spare SATA ports (on top of the stock 4) and now ESATA to your hearts content. Nice upgradeability / expandability. Not too shabby.

Want another CDRW/DVDRW/BLUERAY/WHATEVER DRIVE? Add one to the second optical port on the Mac Pro. Apple even has a nice little applet to allow you access to open / close the second drive (in addition to key combos). Nice upgradeability / expandability there.

Want faster CPUs? Apple doesn't control the cost of the CPUs... so too expensive isn't an argument. Go to newegg.com and buy 2 faster CPUs and plug them in. Nice upgradeability / expandability there.

Want more memory? Is 32 GB of upgrading / expanding not enough for you? I think it's pretty kick ass. Personally.

Want more than 2 gigabit ethernet ports? How about more firewire / usb ports? Well, one of the 3 PCI expansion slots are your friend! Use them! Order any card you want and upgrade / expand to your hearts content.

Want a faster / better video card? There are only 2 choices for the Mac right now... but that, too... isn't Apple's fault. ATI has a nice history of producing a few cards for Macs along the way. If you are running windows... then ANY 2.0 Card will run and run fine.

So... when talking about upgradeability... the ONLY area I see an issue with over any other PC in the world is in the area of Video Cards.

There is also a different mindset when users come from the PC world where they want to "upgrade" forever... the Mac side simply doesn't think that way because the resale of the existing machines are soooo great... that it kinda eliminates the need to upgrade in the traditional PC sense. I can get 70-80% of RETAIL when I go to sell my Mac in a year when the new ones come out... and probably spend LESS to get a brand new top of the line EVERYTHING than I would have to simply "upgrade" to the video card or CPUs themselves... NOT SO MUCH in the PC world. You have a 1-2 year old dell... and NOBODY is buying that thing for more than 30 cents on the dollar. Typically. I'm sure there are a few examples that PC people can point and say "See here... he sold it for more".

The bottom line is that the Mac Pro is:

1) a HELL of a machine.
2) a Price Bargain
3) Infinitely upgradeable / expandable (save the lone issue with video cards in OS X ONLY)
4) A machine that in a years time, you can sell for a ton of cash and get a brand new one for less than it would take you to upgrade a typical PC.

Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it ;-)

Flame on!

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 07:53 PM

Well said, GotPro!

dreamof3d

Mar 30, 2008, 08:12 PM

Second that GotPro, I was bitching for a while too, but it all comes down to:

Technology is updated in leaps and bounds, with the re-sale value of our Mac Pro's, why would you want to rebuild anyway. I personally like the fact this machine is covered for 2 more years, why strip everything out for new, when for a few bones more......U know what I mean.....:)

lampliter

Mar 30, 2008, 08:12 PM

If graphics cards are so important to you, why didn't you get an X1900 or Quadro FX when you got your computer?

What is it that you do with your computer that you feel it's useless?

Pastry chef I do understand your question,and at least this time it is a fair question coming from what seems a mind that is still intact.However I know even when I answer it there will still be replies that my case is very unusual and some how exaggerated.So here it is,first off all I have always had a mac,longer than most here and deserve the right to be not put off as a nut.OK,when I bought my pro I didnt buy the 1900 because it is a terrible card for the price,I don`t mean bad performance but there were hundreds of posts saying the card was nothing but trouble,and any serch on any form will tell you that.I didnt buy the 8 million dollar FX because it is not even close to being worth it not to say it is`nt a half desend one.So the problem is here once again I have answered and now I will be told that I have no right to turn down choices given to me by apple(such as the 400 dollar fire ball 1900).Also most people here can not for a second sympathize with this situation,and somehow it is the fault of the buyer for paying out all that money on a pro.I know I should be held responsible for buying this pro and thinking apple would support it for more than a year.Maybe I am crazy thinking that the 7300 gt is out dated,because most here take offense to saying anything about it. We can make fun of windows for every little thing we can come up with , but don`t dare say anything wrong with mac because it will fall on deaf ears.You people are actually beginning to break me also.Praise Steve, he is my savior and can do nothing wrong.And I hope he is spending my money wisely.

Wild-Bill

Mar 30, 2008, 08:15 PM

Interesting how many people saying this have early '08 Mac Pros with 8800s. :rolleyes:

Just for the record, I have a 2008 MP with an 8800GT and I have nothing but sympathy for those of you stuck with the 1900xt in your pre-2008 Mac Pros. I'd be pretty pissed. But I'll just reserve my anger for later this year or next year when it happens to me.

Apple is not going to do anything to get the 8800GT working in the older Mac Pros, as I'm sure they'll do nothing for early 2008 Mac Pro owners who want whatever comes in the "late 2008 / 2009" Mac Pro.

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 08:28 PM

Pastry chef I do understand your question,and at least this time it is a fair question coming from what seems a mind that is still intact.However I know even when I answer it there will still be replies that my case is very unusual and some how exaggerated.So here it is,first off all I have always had a mac,longer than most here and deserve the right to be not put off as a nut.OK,when I bought my pro I didnt buy the 1900 because it is a terrible card for the price,I don`t mean bad performance but there were hundreds of posts saying the card was nothing but trouble,and any serch on any form will tell you that.I didnt buy the 8 million dollar FX because it is not even close to being worth it not to say it is`nt a half desend one.So the problem is here once again I have answered and now I will be told that I have no right to turn down choices given to me by apple(such as the 400 dollar fire ball 1900).Also most people here can not for a second sympathize with this situation,and somehow it is the fault of the buyer for paying out all that money on a pro.I know I should be held responsible for buying this pro and thinking apple would support it for more than a year.Maybe I am crazy thinking that the 7300 gt is out dated,because most here take offense to saying anything about it. We can make fun of windows for every little thing we can come up with , but don`t dare say anything wrong with mac because it will fall on deaf ears.You people are actually beginning to break me also.Praise Steve, he is my savior and can do nothing wrong.And I hope he is spending my money wisely.

Yes, some people had problems with X1900s. But, I believe later revisions corrected whatever issues plagued it.

I could be wrong, but, from what I remember, the X1900 was the top of the line card from ATI when it made its appearance on the 1st gen Mac Pros.

You keep on claiming that we're Jobs worshippers and Apple apologists. I really don't see any of that in this thread. Please stop insulting me and everyone else here.

Just for the record, I have a 2008 MP with an 8800GT and I have nothing but sympathy for those of you stuck with the 1900xt in your pre-2008 Mac Pros. I'd be pretty pissed. But I'll just reserve my anger for later this year or next year when it happens to me.

Apple is not going to do anything to get the 8800GT working in the older Mac Pros, as I'm sure they'll do nothing for early 2008 Mac Pro owners who want whatever comes in the "late 2008 / 2009" Mac Pro.

That remains to be seen. I read from a link from another thread on here to look for a 1st gen compatible version of the 8800GT in April. I don't know if it's real or fake, but I think people should wait and see a little before jumping to conclusions.

Found the link:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5212031&postcount=1260

lampliter

Mar 30, 2008, 08:48 PM

Yes, some people had problems with X1900s. But, I believe later revisions corrected whatever issues plagued it.

I could be wrong, but, from what I remember, the X1900 was the top of the line card from ATI when it made its appearance on the 1st gen Mac Pros.

You keep on claiming that we're Jobs worshippers and Apple apologists. I really don't see any of that in this thread. Please stop insulting me and everyone else here.

Why is it such a bad thing that we ask for a reasonable graphics card.The only reasaon I can come to is that it hurts peoples feeling to say apple is not perfect.Telling me that the 1900 is top of the line doesn`t help me,it helps you feel better about apple.The 1900 is a flop, sorry to make you hurt once again with the facts.Looking forward to another post saying every thing is peaches and cream at apple land.All we are saying is , it is not right what apple is doing.Stop insulting me by trying to tell me I have no right to expect something even reasonably from a 3000 dollar machine.

pastrychef

Mar 30, 2008, 09:06 PM

Why is it such a bad thing that we ask for a reasonable graphics card.The only reasaon I can come to is that it hurts peoples feeling to say apple is not perfect.Telling me that the 1900 is top of the line doesn`t help me,it helps you feel better about apple.The 1900 is a flop, sorry to make you hurt once again with the facts.Looking forward to another post saying every thing is peaches and cream at apple land.All we are saying is , it is not right what apple is doing.Stop insulting me by trying to tell me I have no right to expect something even reasonably from a 3000 dollar machine.

Are you saying it wasn't the top of the line ATI card at the time of the Mac Pro introduction?

It doesn't make me feel any better or worse if the X1900 is a flop or not. I sold it along with my old Mac Pro.

What is "reasonable" to you?

I never told you to expect or not to expect anything. I was asking you to stop insulting me.

lampliter

Mar 30, 2008, 09:34 PM

Are you saying it wasn't the top of the line ATI card at the time of the Mac Pro introduction?

It doesn't make me feel any better or worse if the X1900 is a flop or not. I sold it along with my old Mac Pro.

What is "reasonable" to you?

I never told you to expect or not to expect anything. I was asking you to stop insulting me.

Pastry chef I can see this form is a place for you to argue and try to twist peoples posts to comply with your personal way of thinking.You will no more hear from me you are always off topic on every post you submit.I will now go and buy a brand new mac pro,just so you can sleep.YES I will buy another mac pro.I am very sorry for expressing my frustration with apple and my mac.You are right ,I am wrong.A 1900 is the best card on the market and has never had problems.I should be happy with my 7300,and it is wrong of me to think other wise.

syth

Mar 31, 2008, 02:50 AM

I stand by what I said, if I do not get to buy an 8800 for my machine that is still less than a year old, this is my last Mac Pro. I I _am_ able to buy an 8800, then certainly I would consider another Mac Pro.

Right now I am still holding out hope Apple will come through and that his was NVIDIA's screw-up.

Mackilroy

Mar 31, 2008, 03:35 AM

Pastry chef I can see this form is a place for you to argue and try to twist peoples posts to comply with your personal way of thinking.You will no more hear from me you are always off topic on every post you submit.I will now go and buy a brand new mac pro,just so you can sleep.YES I will buy another mac pro.I am very sorry for expressing my frustration with apple and my mac.You are right ,I am wrong.A 1900 is the best card on the market and has never had problems.I should be happy with my 7300,and it is wrong of me to think other wise.

Having read your and his interchange, it seems like you're overreacting a bit here. He's not saying that you should be happy with the 7300, he's simply saying that when the 2006 Mac Pro was released, the x1900 was top of the line. Nowhere does he state that it still is, or that you have to be satisfied with it being the most powerful card currently available to run in the 2006 Mac Pros under OS X.

As he said in his previous post (which it seems you missed) he just wants you to stop insulting him, not stop being dissatisfied with Apple's upgradeability or lack thereof regarding the Mac Pro.

peschybear

Mar 31, 2008, 04:25 AM

The Mac Pro is a nice and powerful machine. At the time I bought it (9 months ago) it was the best you could get for that price even compared to PCs (video card excluded). I am a gamer and normally I buy a new PC every 2 years, but I got fet up with the video card race on PC and the idea of an optimal system that changes every month. Also I was looking for a silent machine.
At the Apple reseller I was able to get some hands-on experience with the Mac Pro and I wanted one badly.
But there was a catch: the Mac Pro with the X1900XT isn't silent at all (in the store it had a 7300) and this card didn't work with boot camp. After 2 weeks my Mac Pro stopped altogether and they needed to replace the Logic board, the processors and the video card. After these problems the machine worked fine.
So now I got a machine which isn't silent and I can't upgrade the video card (yet).
If I run boot camp windows only detects 2GB RAM in stead of the max of 4GB.
If I want to run Windows 64 bit on my 64-bit machine I need a new Mac Pro. The old one is 64 bit according to Apple, but not for boot camp.
It says a lot of Mac OS X, that I am still a fan despite all the problems and setbacks.
Apple fans don't like criticism but this is the truth. Apple is selling nice machines and has an awesome operating system, but they can still improve a lot of things.
The idea of a Mac Mini or iMac combined with a Macbook in stead of a Mac Pro isn't so bad.
To the question if I would buy another Mac Pro I'll say maybe.

OZMP

Mar 31, 2008, 04:26 AM

my next tower will be a pc tower, thinking of returning my macbook due to **** build quality, and the screens on MBP's are meant to be duds. My MP will be on ebay soon most likely :P

jjahshik32

Mar 31, 2008, 04:42 AM

I would definitely buy again, I'm going to try to wait out 4-5 years before buying another one... but.. I doubt it and I'll only hold out 2 more years realistically!!:D

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 05:34 AM

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 05:48 AM

If I want to run Windows 64 bit on my 64-bit machine I need a new Mac Pro.

Really?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=231901

pastrychef

Mar 31, 2008, 06:27 AM

krye

Mar 31, 2008, 09:25 AM

I'd buy another Mac Pro is a heart beat. It's the most amazing, most powerful computer I've ever owned. The thing is, if you're about to spend $4000 on a Mac, it's your responsibility as an Apple consumer to check the blogs. Find out if a new machine in the works. And if it is, then wait. If you don't, then you have to live with your decision.

"We" the Apple community knew for months that the new 8 core standard Mac Pros were coming in January. We all suspected a MacWorld release. Much to our surprise, it was released the week before. You have to be an educated consumer where it comes to Apple. I can't stand listening to people complain about the machine they just bought and they're all upset because a new one just come out a week later. It's like when people buy iPods in August and then are all upset when Apple releases new iPods in the fall. New iPhones are coming in June. People will buy the old one in May and then bitch that they missed the boat in June. You need to educate yourself the next time you decide to drop $4000 on Apple.

Gonk42

Mar 31, 2008, 09:55 AM

I am waiting to buy a MacPro (until the point when I really need it) but I do now own a Macbook. I've read this thread with interest.

It seems to me that hardware wise the base model Mac Pro is a very good price for an 8 core machine (especially if you're a student). In the pc world prices sky-rocket as soon as you go to dual Xeon processors.

Additionally the Mac OS is very nice.

But what seems to frustrate many people on the forums is that you are constantly faced with unpleasant choices-

i) you can fit a powerful graphics card and use it under Windows but then you have to give up Mac OS because of such issues as the fans going full-tilt even if there is a second graphics card present.

ii) you can fit an (expensive) RAID card and have SAS drives but then can't use bootcamp and Windows.

iii) if you want anything more powerful than the base model Apple charges outrageous upgrade prices. Memory and hard-drives you can get around by buying 3rd party but this sometimes means the Apple support is more limited. With processors you really have no choice. For example, Apple charges £500 to upgrade to 3.0GHz processors and you not even guaranteed to get the lower power 'E5472' ones. The difference in price from somewhere like scan is only £280 and you do get the 'E' versions. Similarly, with graphics cards you have a very limited and in some cases expensive choice if you want to use Mac OSX.

iv) third party support for hardware (such as nvidia's CUDA and Tesla) will always go first to Windows then Linux and probably never be quite complete for Mac OSX. (This, of course, is not Apple's fault but a reflection of user-base size.)

v.) for obvious commercial reasons, new goodies (like the 8800) go to the new machines first but there does seem to be a lack of support for existing owners - not everyone likes to go through the hassle of selling a machine and buying again just to upgrade one component.

So Apple seduces you with good base prices, a nice OS, good design, but then frustrates by not being flexible, by forcing you to work at getting the machine you really want and by always giving the best goodies to new customers rather than rewarding loyalty.

On one level it makes commercial sense for Apple but I wonder if there is a hidden commercial cost in lost and delayed sales where people like me put off buying or worse still opt for a drab, perhaps expensive, but flexible Unix box instead.

I should add that there is a big upside to Apple's restrictive hardware policy - things should work better because there are far less varients to worry about - perhaps you just can't have things both ways.

jrnewhouse

Mar 31, 2008, 10:31 AM

Maybe I have been lucky, but I have owned Macs since 1994 and each one has been great. I have had a couple of minor problems over the years. My PowerMac 7300 had a bad hard drive, and my PowerMac G5 had a bad optical drive, but Apple sent me new ones via overnight delivery and the replacements worked fine. Regarding my current Mac, being able to run OS X and Windows Vista on the same machine gives me the best of both worlds for getting my work done and gaming. So far, I have not had a problem with my X1900XT for any game I have thrown at it (knock wood). Like many who contribute to this thread, I would like to have a graphics card upgrade for my machine and the recent post on Blizzard's forum seems to intimate that it will happen. But I am not willing to throw away 14 years of great experiences with Macs just because I can't buy an 8800GT for my 2007 Mac Pro today. So, yes I will buy another Mac Pro (if that is what they call it when the time comes ;)).

lampliter

Mar 31, 2008, 12:19 PM

Having read your and his interchange, it seems like you're overreacting a bit here. He's not saying that you should be happy with the 7300, he's simply saying that when the 2006 Mac Pro was released, the x1900 was top of the line. Nowhere does he state that it still is, or that you have to be satisfied with it being the most powerful card currently available to run in the 2006 Mac Pros under OS X.

As he said in his previous post (which it seems you missed) he just wants you to stop insulting him, not stop being dissatisfied with Apple's upgradeability or lack thereof regarding the Mac Pro.

Im sick of repeating myself and sick of you putting words in my mouth and sick of replies from mac freaks who can`t agree with any thing that may hurt mac.Look,I have a 3000 dollar mac with a 7300 and there is no,absolutely no upgrade path for this machine.That is the bottom line,twist it how you like,come up with some crazy answer to make yourselves feel better about your own mac.There is no upgrade path for this machine.But there is in your opinion because you refuse to see it that way.The 7300 is the only very reliable card for this mac.end of story.Hundreds of others are in the same boat.Why do you think these threads even exist.How do you make yourselves believe there is no problem.I do not own shares in apple so I can tell it how it is.There is no other card for a 1 year old mac other than the 7300.

peschybear

Mar 31, 2008, 12:21 PM

I'm not saying that you should have to do this, but there are quite a few after market coolers for the X1900 that dramatically reduced the amount of noise.

If you are running the 32 bit version of Windows XP in Bootcamp, it should be detecting 3GB. This is a limitation of 32 bit Windows XP, not the Mac Pro.

As Infrared has shown you, it is indeed possible to run the 64 bit version of Windows.

I don't mind hearing criticism if it's true.

I know, but then there is the warranty issue and the X1900XT is not the most stable video card, so I'm not taking the risk with a €500 card.

You'll find on this page the table with the memory limit for Windows XP (4GB!):
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
Windows XP in boot camp sees actually 5GB, but only 2GB are used. The same problem occurs with Vista in boot camp

There is a difference between something that runs smoothly out of the box and something that needs a lot of tweaking and praying. Check the forums: some people succeed other have issues with hardware.
But, OK, it is "possible".

greenmeanie

Mar 31, 2008, 12:35 PM

I did the same thing.
For your money you are doing good getting two quad cores.

Not just yes but HELL yes.

Even if I wanted a PC and not a Mac I'd STILL buy a Mac Pro and ONLY run XP/VISTA on it.

Why?

1:) PRICE. Its truly a steal. Price out the parts on building a PC just as bad-a$$ed as the Mac Pro and its almost 2x as much... Heck... Just 2 2.8 Quad Cpus and a dual CPU mb for said CPUS costs near $2300ish... And the whole system from Apple with Education discount is only $2500!!!

2:) Want a windows only gaming system? Its STILL a steal... Buy it... ONLY run Windows in it... And buy any damn Video Card you want for it!

Not sure why people get so upset... Kinda like being pissed at Ford because they didnt drop a Chevy LS7 motor in a mustang.

If you want a Chevy LS7 motor so freaking bad go buy the car that the motor you want comes in... Don't go whining to the other car companies fan forums that you are upset with their companies because their cars don't have the motor YOU want.

Go buy the thing that makes YOU happy and just let us do the same ;-)

No offense intended, btw!

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 12:58 PM

iv) third party support for hardware (such as nvidia's CUDA and Tesla) will always go first to Windows then Linux and probably never be quite complete for Mac OSX. (This, of course, is not Apple's fault but a reflection of user-base size.)

OS X has a larger user-base than Linux.

Alpinism

Mar 31, 2008, 01:18 PM

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 31, 2008, 01:37 PM

[Deleted text about how old and wise I am :D ]
While I still dabble in games, now 20 some odd years later, my main reason for griping here is I would also like my photo editing sessions to go without beach balls. Some of us shoot a lot of RAW and would like to run Aperture or iPhoto (and the photo editing pro-app flavor of the week) with a sense of snappiness. Just because the Mac Pro is right for your workflow, doesn't mean it's automatically right for everyone.

EDIT: This post was edited by a moderator. I was merely dispelling Alpinism's false assumptions. Is it too much to ask for "ePenis moderation" on both sides of this argument? Thank you.

MacUser2525

Mar 31, 2008, 01:48 PM

OS X has a larger user-base than Linux.

That is certainly debatable for paid installs most likely the truth for the installs that go unreported by most of the measurements out there there is not a hope in hell OSX has more than them just taking the super computers out there as an example there are literally thousands of computers running GNU/Linux in one spot for each of them that will never show in any metric .. Oh and if you actually measured by the GNU/free software installed instead of Linux kernel installed with it then OSX would fall right into that measurement there is a ton of GNU installed by default on every Mac.

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 02:10 PM

That is certainly debatable for paid installs most likely the truth for the installs that go unreported by most of the measurements out there there is not a hope in hell OSX has more than them just taking the super computers out there as an example there are literally thousands of computers running GNU/Linux in one spot for each of them that will never show in any metric .. Oh and if you actually measured by the GNU/free software installed instead of Linux kernel installed with it then OSX would fall right into that measurement there is a ton of GNU installed by default on every Mac.

That's some sentence. You can sprinkle a few full stops in
there if you like.

I hardly think the number of supercomputer users is going
to help Linux vanquish OS X :)

Not saying it's siuntifick or anyfink:

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

giantrobot

Mar 31, 2008, 02:13 PM

The Mac has always been a 'creative machine' for Pro's and it is designed to be as such. Unfortunately when Apple decides to roam in the consumer world (starting with the iPod), lines were crossed and consumers get confused.

Nothing baffles me more than teenagers/yuppies that purchased a pro machine (MBP, MP), install Vista and then complained about the GPU not being powerful enough to play their windows based games.

We paid a lot of money for a Mac solely based on its solid OS and its solid software (namely FCS 2). Our studio's G5 still perform solidly with Maya 2008, Shake, PS CS3 and FCS 2 without a hitch with the old GPU. The oscar winning film "no country for old men" was edited 100% with a Mac Pro.

Yes, I personally cant wait to purchase the upcoming 12 core Nehalem next year, even if it costs $ 3500 for the stock model and I could care less if the GPU is still not upgradable with the latest and greatest for that latest person person shooter game.

I hope you realize that offering a GPU upgrade path will not diminish the performance of the Mac Pro nor make your work any less serious. In fact, Apple has denied the GPU upgrade path because they want the current users to buy their new machine which is otherwise not significantly better than the previous model. No other workstation is crippled in this way and I am baffled by your defense of this.

All you are really defending is a planned obsolescence that Apple really goes out of its way to implement. How does it benefit you to defend this?

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 02:16 PM

In fact, Apple has denied the GPU upgrade path because they want the current users to buy their new machine [...]

Not "In fact". That's a guess at best.

MacFanBoyIIe

Mar 31, 2008, 02:25 PM

That's some sentence. You can sprinkle a few full stops in there if you like.

Maybe he's going for the Hemmingway effect....

Gonk42

Mar 31, 2008, 02:41 PM

OS X has a larger user-base than Linux.

I don't know the numbers but I guess what is important to people like nvidia is the user base in particular areas. iMac users are probably not going to be doing parallel processing on GPUs so it is the subset of Mac OS users who have Mac Pros and use them to do scientific computing vs the number of scientific computing people who have Unix work stations that will determine which market is addressed first.

I only gave this as an example because I was looking at feedback from Mac users on the forum on nvidia's site.

The majority of Mac Pro users are in the creative side of things (video, photography etc) and are well catered for. The people (like me) who want to do other things are in the minority so won't be a high priority for Apple, and if we go with Apple systems we won't be a high priority for third party hardware producers either.

MacUser2525

Mar 31, 2008, 03:00 PM

That's some sentence. You can sprinkle a few full stops in
there if you like.

I hardly think the number of supercomputer users is going
to help Linux vanquish OS X :)

Not saying it's siuntifick or anyfink:

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Yeah probably could have put a couple of periods in there. You also still ignore the point that the vast majority of GNU/Linux installs are on machines that are never counted because every copy is not bought and paid for like most of the basic building blocks of the internet. With things like your Apache web servers, ftp sites, email you know the things that make this sh*t run then add in the home users and you have one hell of a large number.

Infrared

Mar 31, 2008, 03:42 PM

Yeah probably could have put a couple of periods in there. You also still ignore the point that the vast majority of GNU/Linux installs are on machines that are never counted because every copy is not bought and paid for like most of the basic building blocks of the internet. With things like your Apache web servers, ftp sites, email you know the things that make this sh*t run then add in the home users and you have one hell of a large number.

A large number, but a tiny percentage of the whole.

Sure, it's widely used for servers, and supercomputers,
but they do not account for a significant proportion of
the total user base. Unless you take as a user anyone
who accesses a site hosted by a Linux server, which is
a kind of contorted argument.

Most home users have never heard of Linux. It simply
doesn't exist in their world.

MacUser2525

Mar 31, 2008, 04:28 PM

A large number, but a tiny percentage of the whole.

Sure, it's widely used for servers, and supercomputers,
but they do not account for a significant proportion of
the total user base. Unless you take as a user anyone
who accesses a site hosted by a Linux server, which is
a kind of contorted argument.

Most home users have never heard of Linux. It simply
doesn't exist in their world.

Yeah it certainly does not even though they use it every day in their setup TV box, cell phone, many other little appliances too numerous to mention, the millions of machines running the internet the list is endless they don't see the air they breathe either it is still there ... Anyways enough of this.

pastrychef

Mar 31, 2008, 05:08 PM

Not "In fact". That's a guess at best.

I was going to point that out, too... But you beat me to it...

Salavat23

Mar 31, 2008, 05:42 PM

Yes, I personally cant wait to purchase the upcoming 12 core Nehalem next year, even if it costs $ 3500 for the stock model and I could care less if the GPU is still not upgradable with the latest and greatest for that latest person person shooter game.

The next Nehalem will be sweet.

It will be 16 core (2x8core).

However, because of hyperthreading, it will have up to 32 cores!!! (2 threads per core).

Plus, it will have 6 channels of DD3 ram.

That means it will have 12 slots of ram.

DDR3 has a maximum capacity of 16gb per stick, so you could put up to 192gb of ram into the Nehalem Mac Pro.

So, there will be a machine that will have up to 32 virtual cores, and expandability up to 192gb of ram.

Tallest Skil

Mar 31, 2008, 05:47 PM

Techguy172

Mar 31, 2008, 05:49 PM

I would really like it if they could move away from the FB-Dimms it would be a whole lot cheaper.

Salavat23

Mar 31, 2008, 05:52 PM

I'm... pretty sure it won't be sixteen cores.
And I can't see any way of shoehorning twelve RAM slots into the Mac Pro.

But a departure from FB-DIMMs would be welcome, even though Apple will still use them for Nehalem.

Yes it will.

Nehalem will be 2-8 cores.

Apple will most likely offer a dual Quad Core standard (8 real cores, 16 virtual cores). Then there will be a 16 core option (32 virtual) just like there was on the original Mac Pro.

Plus, there will be DDR3 FB-DIMMs just like there are now DDR2 FB-DIMMs.

And it it not hard to get 12 slots in. Just put 6 slots per riser card, and eliminate the heatsinks on the ram to make more room.

DDR3 runs at 1.5V compared to DDR2 which runs at 1.8V. Therefore, it will run much cooler, and the heatsinks could either get smaller, or be removed altogether.

Tallest Skil

Mar 31, 2008, 05:54 PM

...and eliminate the heatsinks on the ram to make more room...

I can see THAT going over well. :D

Salavat23

Mar 31, 2008, 05:58 PM

I can see THAT going over well. :D

Well there would be little need for them since DDR3 runs much cooler;)

Alpinism

Mar 31, 2008, 07:48 PM

Workflow has nothing to do with any of my claim. Final Cut Studio 2 is a god send for the small indie filmmakers like us. It is so good and concise as such that it was used to edit oscar caliber films and it only cost $1299. The program Color is an over $10k program before it was given out for free with FCS 2.

If our little studio can run FCS 2 on our aging G5 with its aging and antiquated GPU, I really dont know why you are having so much trouble with Aperture and PS CS3 on a much newer machine. Then again, we treat and respect our MAC as being a work machine in such that we don't install or bloat it with unnecessary software and silly applications.

In fact, pure and simple a Mac pro is a tool targeted towards the pro. It is designed and sold to be as such. Apple is a CLOSED system that works really good, PERIOD. Apple controls both hardware and software for the MAC, plain and simple. The way Apple rule their Close system with an iron fist is one of the reasons why the OS and the software work beautifully together.

But you know what ? Apple is the first in the industry to support the XDCAM EX codec format apart from Sony with Sony Vegas. So for the pros (especially filmmakers) Apple is WAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

There is a really good reading in the latest WIRED Magazine regarding Apple's business model. This months business week also has a very interesting 1 page cover regarding how apple is now trying to conqueror the "Business or Corporate" market.

[Deleted text about how old and wise I am :D ]
While I still dabble in games, now 20 some odd years later, my main reason for griping here is I would also like my photo editing sessions to go without beach balls. Some of us shoot a lot of RAW and would like to run Aperture or iPhoto (and the photo editing pro-app flavor of the week) with a sense of snappiness. Just because the Mac Pro is right for your workflow, doesn't mean it's automatically right for everyone.

EDIT: This post was edited by a moderator. I was merely dispelling Alpinism's false assumptions. Is it too much to ask for "ePenis moderation" on both sides of this argument? Thank you.

MacFanBoyIIe

Apr 1, 2008, 12:45 AM

Workflow has nothing to do with any of my claim. Final Cut Studio 2 is a god send for the small indie filmmakers like us. It is so good and concise as such that it was used to edit oscar caliber films and it only cost $1299. The program Color is an over $10k program before it was given out for free with FCS 2.

If our little studio can run FCS 2 on our aging G5 with its aging and antiquated GPU, I really dont know why you are having so much trouble with Aperture and PS CS3 on a much newer machine. Then again, we treat and respect our MAC as being a work machine in such that we don't install or bloat it with unnecessary software and silly applications.

In fact, pure and simple a Mac pro is a tool targeted towards the pro. It is designed and sold to be as such. Apple is a CLOSED system that works really good, PERIOD. Apple controls both hardware and software for the MAC, plain and simple. The way Apple rule their Close system with an iron fist is one of the reasons why the OS and the software work beautifully together....

I'm really glad that you are not having problems with your G5. Seriously. But, how is what you described not your workflow?
Regardless (semantics aside), video editing tends to be more CPU intensive and batch photo editing tends to be more GPU intensive. This is why I am NOT complaining about my video editing. I just want the option to put a better GPU in my Mac Pro. This is a MUST for me. How many 1st Gen Mac Pro owners got tired of waiting and just said "**** it," eBayed their old Mac Pro, and bought a new one in order to solve this problem? This is not a road I want to go down.
I guess some people buy a new car every year, and some people (like me) like to buy a new car and then enjoy it for 2-3 years before trading it in.

...I would bet you know next to nothing about 64-bit EFI implementations and what is involved in writing EFI code. You have absolutely no idea what decisions were made and what the technical challenges were[1]. Only people on the inside really know this....[1] Writing drivers and firmware is insanely difficult. And one missed bug can bring down the OS.

I would bet most people know next to nothing about 64-bit EFI implementations. You don't know what I do or what my degrees are in. Don't make assumptions of what people know or don't know. :rolleyes:
This problem is not a question of difficulty or technical challenges. The 1st Gen Mac Pros are fully capable of supporting the 8800GT, given the right supporting drivers/firmware. Apple obviously invested the software engineers' man-hours into developing this for the Early '08 Mac Pros and didn't do the same for the previous generation Mac Pros. Why? Well as you say we have "no idea what decisions were made." But it doesn't take a software engineer to figure out that it's all about forcing the new Mac Pros down the throats of 1st Gen owners. And from some of the comments I've seen on this thread, it's working.

dukeblue91

Apr 1, 2008, 09:08 AM

First of all Hell yes I would buy another MP when I need one.

Now to the OP.
I don't know why you call your MP an obsolete machine, you bought it 6 mos. ago with the GPU you have now.
Had Apple not come out with another machine with a new GPU you'd still be a happy camper today.
Also I think you people should wait a little longer to see what really will happen, the 8800GT has been out of stock and on backorder for the most part since it's intro on the new Mac and just now is slowly becoming fully available for the newer Mac.

It would have made no sense for Apple to dedicate much time and announcements when the card was not yet available in the first place.

Also had you done your research prior to buying your MP you would have known that a new system was coming out very shortly.

So enjoy what you bought and wait and see what will happen.
Your MP is as capable today as it was 6 mos. ago, no change.

Just for the record I have the HD2600 and I'm very happy with it.

pastrychef

Apr 1, 2008, 09:33 AM

I would bet most people know next to nothing about 64-bit EFI implementations. You don't know what I do or what my degrees are in. Don't make assumptions of what people know or don't know. :rolleyes:
This problem is not a question of difficulty or technical challenges. The 1st Gen Mac Pros are fully capable of supporting the 8800GT, given the right supporting drivers/firmware. Apple obviously invested the software engineers' man-hours into developing this for the Early '08 Mac Pros and didn't do the same for the previous generation Mac Pros. Why? Well as you say we have "no idea what decisions were made." But it doesn't take a software engineer to figure out that it's all about forcing the new Mac Pros down the throats of 1st Gen owners. And from some of the comments I've seen on this thread, it's working.

How do you know they went out of their way to prevent the 8800GT from working in 1st gen Mac Pros??? Why didn't they do it with the Radeon HD 2600XT, too???

I really think the conspiracy theorist in you is getting the better of you.

MacFanBoyIIe

Apr 1, 2008, 09:50 AM

I really think the conspiracy theorist in you is getting the better of you.

I truly hope you're right. But what other reason could it be? And why hasn't Apple given us a reason for not releasing it to the 1st Gen Mac Pros? If they spent all that time developing for it to work in the newer Mac Pros, someone involved had to have said, "Hey guys, we should be doing this for the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of older Mac Pros too!" This is friggin' common sense, man!

All of the other features on the Mac Pro are great! OS X is the best consumer operating system on the market; at least 5 years ahead of anything Microsoft will put out. But for me, not being able to upgrade the GPU, like you can in any pro-PC, is a deal-breaker.
The Mac Pro is not just a computer. To me (and that's what matters), it's an investment. I spend that kind of cash on one, I want to get the best resale value I can out of it. If I know now I won't be able to upgrade its GPU, I need to either decide to keep it (like some kept their G4s), or sell it soon while it's still worth something.
Some of you just bought a new, early '08 Mac Pro. What happens in 9 months when the next refresh happens and you find out you are stuck with something for the rest of your machine's life? Your Mac Pro will be just 12 months old (or less) and not upgradable. Some smarty-pants on the internet will tell you "Well, you should have done the research!"
If this happens, some of you won't care and will just buy the new one, I know. But most of you won't want to have to deal with that situation.

pastrychef

Apr 1, 2008, 10:31 AM

I truly hope you're right. But what other reason could it be? And why hasn't Apple given us a reason for not releasing it to the 1st Gen Mac Pros? If they spent all that time developing for it to work in the newer Mac Pros, someone involved had to have said, "Hey guys, we should be doing this for the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of older Mac Pros too!" This is friggin' common sense, man!

I've hypothesized in the past and continue to that it was a screw up of nVidia.

When was the last time Apple let anyone know what they were doing ahead of time?

When handed the task of writing the firmware for the 8800GT, the topic of previous generation Mac Pros could very well have never come up. Heck, the team involved in writing the firmware may not have even had the previous gen Mac Pros in the lab. (this is paragraph is all conjecture)

iBlue

Apr 1, 2008, 10:38 AM

...

EDIT: This post was edited by a moderator. I was merely dispelling Alpinism's false assumptions. Is it too much to ask for "ePenis moderation" on both sides of this argument? Thank you.
Believe me, the mods probably don't care about the argument, they edit when necessary. No decent points of argument would be edited out but insults and swearing might. (I didn't see the edit, just sayin') If you see something that needs moderating, report the post.

P.S. I've got a mac pro 2.8 Octo and I love it. :D

twoodcc

Apr 1, 2008, 11:42 AM

yes i will buy one.....when i have the money. so it'll be when they have over 10-cores

joegomolski

Apr 1, 2008, 12:25 PM

I'm planning to buy the next edition of the MacPro, provided there is a design change. To a smaller form factor.

Alpinism

Apr 1, 2008, 12:37 PM

I also do After Effects CS3 and Motion 3 and the other 2 animators do Maya. All are far more GPU intensive that Photoshop, lightroom, Nikon NX or Aperture.

If I were you, and I worried much about having greatest and latest GPU and I only do imagine processing like Adobe Lighroom, PS CS3, I would switch to a workstation PC with XP pro. Those software are not MAC specific/exclusive.

I'm really glad that you are not having problems with your G5. Seriously. But, how is what you described not your workflow?
Regardless (semantics aside), video editing tends to be more CPU intensive and batch photo editing tends to be more GPU intensive. This is why I am NOT complaining about my video editing. I just want the option to put a better GPU in my Mac Pro. This is a MUST for me. How many 1st Gen Mac Pro owners got tired of waiting and just said "**** it," eBayed their old Mac Pro, and bought a new one in order to solve this problem? This is not a road I want to go down.
I guess some people buy a new car every year, and some people (like me) like to buy a new car and then enjoy it for 2-3 years before trading it in.

I would bet most people know next to nothing about 64-bit EFI implementations. You don't know what I do or what my degrees are in. Don't make assumptions of what people know or don't know. :rolleyes:
This problem is not a question of difficulty or technical challenges. The 1st Gen Mac Pros are fully capable of supporting the 8800GT, given the right supporting drivers/firmware. Apple obviously invested the software engineers' man-hours into developing this for the Early '08 Mac Pros and didn't do the same for the previous generation Mac Pros. Why? Well as you say we have "no idea what decisions were made." But it doesn't take a software engineer to figure out that it's all about forcing the new Mac Pros down the throats of 1st Gen owners. And from some of the comments I've seen on this thread, it's working.

MacFanBoyIIe

Apr 1, 2008, 12:43 PM

If I were you, and I worried much about having greatest and latest GPU and I only do imagine processing like Adobe Lighroom, PS CS3, I would switch to a workstation PC with XP pro. Those software are not MAC specific/exclusive.

Thanks. That's what I started out saying on the very first post on this thread. Full circle in 3 pages of posts... :D

EDIT: Poll Update (as of the time of this post)
Roughly 63% of Mac Pro owners surveyed say they would DEFINITELY buy another one someday.
Roughly 23% of Mac Pro owners surveyed say they MIGHT buy another one someday.
Roughly 14% of Mac Pro owners surveyed say they would NEVER buy another Mac Pro.

That's about what I expected. Feel free to keep voting.
We'll just have to see if we get the GPU update soon.

So, unless anyone has anything useful to add, I'm for closing this thread.
I'll be around.