7 years lifespan?

[hugodrax]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?

I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.

[thegoldenmackid]

There are those that can also get years out of their PCs, but the key is the owner. Just keep updating components when they need appear to need replacing.

[UltraNEO*]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?

I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.

Well, it really depends on your requirements, processing speed and time to complete a project. Also, if your current software does everything you need and there are no plans to upgrade for more advance, more processor intensive applications then.. sure, maybe you can get seven years from your machine.

..computer technology on average, are usually out of date after six months, that's the pace of technology moving.. so a seven year old computer will technically be a worthless antique.

[Maserati7200]

Well, it's like saying a PowerMac G4 is still a really powerful computer for today, I mean lets be honest, it's an antique. We all thought it was so great back then. I mean, in 7 years, 16 GB of memory will probably be sub par or nothing special.

[GreatDrok]

I generally expect to get about 5 years out of my Macs as main use machines and hopefully some more as secondary systems. I just relegated my 933 Mhz iBook G4 to the iTunes service role and it just turned 5. Take care of your machine, replace anything that breaks that can (iBook is on a new HD but otherwise original, MacBook Pro has a new HD and I just replaced the power pack and battery).

A machine like the Mac Pro should have long legs and certainly an 06 model is still pretty fresh IMHO.

[Jayomat]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?


Uhmm... that's like asking:"I just bought a new car. Is it possible that it breaks down due to some problems that may occur over time?" :rolleyes:

As for the OS... Snow Leopard only supports Intel based Macs.. no one can guarantee you that the same won't happen with one of the next revisions of OSX (OS11...?)... maybe the minimum requirement will be a Quad-Core in 5 years... who knows... ;)


I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.

I don't want to start a mac/pc flame war here, but a "normal" pc can last for such a long time as well, as long as you take good care of it... I just wanted to point that out ;)

[smacman]

I don't think the 09 Mac Pros (http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/12/16/bug.apparently.affecting.nehalem.based.systems/) will last very long unless users never play audio...

[Maserati7200]

I don't think the 09 Mac Pros (http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/12/16/bug.apparently.affecting.nehalem.based.systems/) will last very long unless users never play audio...

wow, that computer would NOT work for me, I'm constantly playing music with a bitrate of at least 256 KB/s, (at full volume) if not full WAV files (very few of my songs are 128 kb/s or 160 kb/s). Gee, my MacBook can do that without a sweat :rolleyes::D;):eek: And if I'm not doing that, I'm editing videos or watching videos, so ya.. this would be disastrous for me

[disconap]

Just as a note--I run on a first gen G5 PPC 2X2.0gHz. I've done some decent upgrades on it, but it is an almost 7 year old machine and it is still my main computer for everything I do (professional graphics and audio mostly, along with heavy almost server level tasks for in-house). I expect to have to upgrade next year solely because my clients will eventually request CS5, and CS5 will be Intel only.

So yes, in theory a Mac tower (specifically, due to the fact that you can keep upgrading to pick up speed here and there, but likely the current line of i5-i7 iMacs) should, based on previous example, last you 5-7 years no sweat, provided you aren't shooting pro-grade full-length HD films or animations, or mapping the human genome or anything. On the flip of that, however, I am very familiar with the workings and longevity of the PPC line; I have not yet owned an Intel Mac, so I don't know if there is a shorter lifespan or not, though I would assume Apple wouldn't put together machines that are sub-par, it's part of the point of buying Apple to begin with...

To give you my example, I'm running a main RAID0 on two 500gb drives just for my OS and apps/desktop, with a 320gb RAID0 as a cache/working files drive and two esata externals for file management (running on a mid-grade PCI card). 6GB of RAM, which is pretty much the standard low to mid at this point, and an upgraded GPU (Radeon 9800 pro, which again is below the current Mac standard and way below the PC level). And again, it still works flawlessly; I've noticed some lag in the past year, especially with CS4, but nothing to the point of wanting to jump to a new tower yet. I'm debating jumping to an SSD RAID0 (since I can move it forward with my next computer purchase) and upping the RAM to max (will lose money on it since I need to buy 4 sticks, but will help with resale a bit and will give me more juice now), but overall I'd say I EASILY got my money's worth out of this machine; in fact, I probably got my money's worth within the first 2-3 years and have been floating on durable older tech since. Same story with my Sawtooth, which is heavily modded/upgraded and still rocks under Leopard (in fact, it boots faster than my G5), and the core of it I bought new in early 2001!

But yeah, if you want top of the line constantly, keep reselling and buying new. But if you want something that will last for what you do, figure out your needs and pick up something that significantly surpasses them and you'll be a-ok. :)

[Macinposh]

As for the OS... Snow Leopard only supports Intel based Macs.. no one can guarantee you that the same won't happen with one of the next revisions of OSX (OS11...?)...

Who forces you to upgrade? Does Stevie come to you house,shove a gun in your mouth and make you upgrade your OS and CS suite to a new one?
Didnt think so either.

If progs work and you get your job done,why update.
(Pre)press field have practically stagnated (photo,gfx design), music as well (you can run 100 tracks with filters quite easily) and web...and...
Of course video field will need more oompah,but as even the present machines edit 1080p/10bit materiel fluently, it is more concern of the 2K/4K+
editing.


I generally expect to get about 5 years out of my Macs as main use machines and hopefully some more as secondary systems.

Same here. And it seems that the 06 could run into 2012/13,easily.
New revisions of CS/FCP are about a year away,and they will run on snowleo.
Now it is just to wait untill snowleo matures enough that you can install
it on production machines.
Heck,my old 06 (4x3.00) still kicks the new quad to the nuts in Photoshop test. After 3 years...

Well, it's like saying a PowerMac G4 is still a really powerful computer for today, I mean lets be honest, it's an antique. We all thought it was so great back then. I mean, in 7 years, 16 GB of memory will probably be sub par or nothing special.

Read the first reply.



But yeah, if you want top of the line constantly, keep reselling and buying new. But if you want something that will last for what you do, figure out your needs and pick up something that significantly surpasses them and you'll be a-ok. :)

Ding ding,we have a winner!

You have the worriers/upgraders and then you have the workers.
Worriers (not warriors) worry that their machine is not fastest on the market,worry that they dont have a raid0 SSD setups,worry that their epeen is not long enough. And blow money away trying to chase their dream and getting the viagra for their epeen.

And then you have workers that buy a system,makes sure it works 24/7, suits their need,gets the best-bang-for-buck and work with it untill it starts to be cost prohibitive to keep on working with the setup.Then they upgade.

[Shademaster]

I got a Jan 08 MacPro and I couldn't be happier. It is still very fast considering modern hardware speeds.

I use it for Cinema4D rendering and it never failed me once. One time it did a nonstop render taking 4 freaking months! It churned through it without a hickup! It is now almost 2 years old and I see this machine having a long future at our studio. RAM upgrade is on the way to take it to 20gb and some new HD's to spice up the storage/speed. This machine will do fine for the next 2 years of intense studio work.

[Jayomat]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?


Who forces you to upgrade? Does Stevie come to you house,shove a gun in your mouth and make you upgrade your OS and CS suite to a new one?
Didnt think so either.

If progs work and you get your job done,why update.
(Pre)press field have practically stagnated (photo,gfx design), music as well (you can run 100 tracks with filters quite easily) and web...and...
Of course video field will need more oompah,but as even the present machines edit 1080p/10bit materiel fluently, it is more concern of the 2K/4K+
editing.


I didn't say that he must upgrade. but he asked whether it's possible that his hardware gets "unsupported" with future OS releases. at least this is how I understood his statement.. and in this case I'm right.. just like PPC users got left behind, it may happen to him.. of course he can use his Mac as long as he gets the job done.. some friends of mine are still on tiger... no problem with that..^^ If I want to, I can still use Windows 3.1 to do word processing .. but that was not the point... if he always wants to work with the "latest" OS, is machine may be unsupported rather sooner than later...

[disconap]

Ding ding,we have a winner!

You have the worriers/upgraders and then you have the workers.
Worriers (not warriors) worry that their machine is not fastest on the market,worry that they dont have a raid0 SSD setups,worry that their epeen is not long enough. And blow money away trying to chase their dream and getting the viagra for their epeen.

And then you have workers that buy a system,makes sure it works 24/7, suits their need,gets the best-bang-for-buck and work with it untill it starts to be cost prohibitive to keep on working with the setup.Then they upgade.

To be fair I'm both, as I want to set up an SSD RAID0 (but as I said, to gain an extra year or so on the G5, and I can put it in whatever I replace it with, so it IS kinda of win-win). ;)

But yeah, I completely agree, there are techheads and workers (and gamers and hobbyists and web users and hybrids of all these, but on the high-end Macs I always assume you're either a worker, a tech-obsessor, or rich beyond belief), and a smart worker is likely to spend top dollar (or as close as they can get) ONCE on something that will last the longest so that he/she doesn't have to worry about constantly upgrading and can just do their job until the machine can't do the job anymore. Which, to go back to the OC's point, I would say in the Mac world can be 5-7 years if you're upping RAM whenever things slow down. I still have my G5 because my G5 handles my workload (though it is starting to slow on Flash stuff). Hell, our audio recording machine is the Sawtooth, and we do most of our tracking in OS9 and mixing in 10.4 or 10.5. They're just machines, they either work for what you need or they don't.

EDIT: Also, re: the prepress comment--I do typesetting for major publishers (grade school through undergrad textbooks mostly), and it's only been the past three months that our clients have requested CS4. They seemed to have skipped CS3 altogether, so most of our jobs were in CS2 up until now. So they're catching up, but yeah, a solidly put together G4 can still handle anything you need to go to plate or phaser without any real hang-ups or quality loss.

[frimple]

I don't think the 09 Mac Pros (http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/12/16/bug.apparently.affecting.nehalem.based.systems/) will last very long unless users never play audio...

*yawn* quit posting this on every thread you touch. I just kicked open iTunes and my CPU utilization is at < 1%. IT DOES NOT AFFECT ALL USERS!

[ncc1701d]

I don't think the 09 Mac Pros (http://www.macnn.com/articles/09/12/16/bug.apparently.affecting.nehalem.based.systems/) will last very long unless users never play audio...Sorry for not staying on topic, but how do I monitor the temp of the CPU?

[TheStrudel]

Also worth pointing out:

The increase in speed as a result of tighter software development has started lagging behind hardware improvements. Sure, we've got 8 cores, multithreaded code, and GPU acceleration, but fewer than a dozen apps actually use it.

I would say Mac Pros could be expected to last a good deal longer than your previous G5s or G4s, unless  switches off of x86 (unlikely, at this juncture). I expect my computer to still be comfortably usable for at least 5 more years, because the software has not caught up with it at all.

Intel's cranking out faster CPUs and chipsets, but only the graphics/media/research people would really notice the improvements at this point. It's easy to forget this on the Mac Pro forum, but realistically, Core 2 Duo will serve the needs of 95% of the computer using population for another 3-6 years, no trouble. Most software isn't even 64-bit yet. And most recently released Macs are 64-bit ready.

[vogelhausdesign]

Who forces you to upgrade? Does Stevie come to you house,shove a gun in your mouth and make you upgrade your OS and CS suite to a new one?
Didnt think so either.

If progs work and you get your job done,why update.
(Pre)press field have practically stagnated (photo,gfx design), music as well (you can run 100 tracks with filters quite easily) and web...and...
Of course video field will need more oompah,but as even the present machines edit 1080p/10bit materiel fluently, it is more concern of the 2K/4K+
editing.




Same here. And it seems that the 06 could run into 2012/13,easily.
New revisions of CS/FCP are about a year away,and they will run on snowleo.
Now it is just to wait untill snowleo matures enough that you can install
it on production machines.
Heck,my old 06 (4x3.00) still kicks the new quad to the nuts in Photoshop test. After 3 years...



Read the first reply.




Ding ding,we have a winner!

You have the worriers/upgraders and then you have the workers.
Worriers (not warriors) worry that their machine is not fastest on the market,worry that they dont have a raid0 SSD setups,worry that their epeen is not long enough. And blow money away trying to chase their dream and getting the viagra for their epeen.

And then you have workers that buy a system,makes sure it works 24/7, suits their need,gets the best-bang-for-buck and work with it untill it starts to be cost prohibitive to keep on working with the setup.Then they upgade.

Sounds like you didn't get what you wanted for christmas.

[Macinposh]

Sounds like you didn't get what you wanted for christmas.

Nope.
No world peace,no flying car,no neck massage from Lucy Liu and photoshop still cant use all cores.
Otherwise quite ok.
Howcome?

[vogelhausdesign]

Nope.
No world peace,no flying car,no neck massage from Lucy Liu and photoshop still cant use all cores.
Otherwise quite ok.
Howcome?

Scratch disks for now :) CS5 when Adobe decides to play nice.

PS neck massage from Lucy Liu? tucking yourself in at night in your dodge viper bed with akira sheets isn't enough anymore?

[ttopp]

Scratch disks for now :) CS5 when Adobe decides to play nice.

PS neck massage from Lucy Liu? tucking yourself in at night in your dodge viper bed with akira sheets isn't enough anymore?

whats a DODGE VIPER (snakeskin?) BED???

i heard a rumor CS5 wont b multi core on OS X :(

[vogelhausdesign]

whats a DODGE VIPER (snakeskin?) BED???

i heard a rumor CS5 wont b multi core on OS X :(

it's a car here in the US. Also a pretty slick looking bed with wheels.

Thats just a rumor, I doubt apple would let their graphics market suffer like that. But we have bootcamp anyway , ya know?

[ttopp]

it's a car here in the US. Also a pretty slick looking bed with wheels.

Thats just a rumor, I doubt apple would let their graphics market suffer like that. But we have bootcamp anyway , ya know?

a car and bed all rolled onto one lol you get them in the uk tay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF8eb7qS__Q

[mstrze]

The only reason I upgraded from my iMac Sage to a Mini was OS X speed and performance issues. Every new upgrade brings new tweaks and major upgrade tend to bring items that are more processor intensive...like certain graphic effects and the like that have gotten themselves built in to the system software.

If you do one thing and your computer does it well, you most assuredly can and will get your computer to last 7 years. My iMac gave me nearly 6 including editing video for my TV resume (I did TV weather). When I worked at a TV station in 1998, they had an Amiga as a video toaster and that computer was easily 6-7 years old and still doing its job.

Alas, my upgrade to a Mini was timed poorly as I got a PPC Mini and the new Intel minis were on the horizon about 4 months down the road. :(

I do now have an Intel Mini btw.

As others have said, the issues will come down to speed and performance as new technologies come about allowing more memory and processor-intensive applications. If you are happy with your current software and what it does in the foreseeable future, you'll be OK.

But, should you soon be needing to edit lossless HD video files on the fly while streaming Dolby 11.1 audio and hyper HD video to your wireless montior in the living room...you'll need to upgrade. ;)

(Funny how when hard drives came out and were just grazing the Gb size limit it seemed like we would NEVER fill them up. Now we have some folks with multi TBs of content. LOL)

[nanofrog]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?

I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.
It's all going to depend on what you do/need out of the system.

The '06 - '07 models use EFI32 firmware, and it could be an issue to you, despite the capabilities of the system otherwise. Graphics cards are already beginning to be a problem (nVidia GTX285 won't work, as it requires EFI64). ATI will likely continue to use EBC based firmware, so you might be able to access a newer model or two there, until firmware goes 128bit, where the specification may change.

And it will become a problem with OS X as well when it goes exclusively to K64 (assuming you want/need to update from the last version of K32 version of OS X, and SL may be the last K32 version).

If you won't need more in terms of OS X or graphics cards, you'll be fine. They're also quite capable as Windows workstations.

This shouldn't be the case, given the use of Xeon parts, but Apple treats them as consumer systems (support for ~3years, rather than the industry standard of 5 for workstations/servers from the date of the parts intitial release by any other vendor).

Also worth pointing out:

The increase in speed as a result of tighter software development has started lagging behind hardware improvements. Sure, we've got 8 cores, multithreaded code, and GPU acceleration, but fewer than a dozen apps actually use it.
Quite true. Software is well behind hardware at this point. And is some cases, multi-threaded isn't going to provide an advantage (i.e. word processing, where the application spends most of it's time waiting on keyboard input).

I would say Mac Pros could be expected to last a good deal longer than your previous G5s or G4s, unless  switches off of x86 (unlikely, at this juncture). I expect my computer to still be comfortably usable for at least 5 more years, because the software has not caught up with it at all.
In general, Yes.

But the EFI32 based systems days are numbered for certain uses (where ever upgrades would be needed to continue with true 64 bit operation <including hardware> or need of new standards that don't appear until pure 64 bit systems <K64 only OS X>).

Intel's cranking out faster CPUs and chipsets, but only the graphics/media/research people would really notice the improvements at this point. It's easy to forget this on the Mac Pro forum, but realistically, Core 2 Duo will serve the needs of 95% of the computer using population for another 3-6 years, no trouble. Most software isn't even 64-bit yet. And most recently released Macs are 64-bit ready.
I'm not so sure about C2D going quite that long (6 yrs), but they've a decent life left. C2Q, would make more sense, as I'd think software developers will start to catch up with multi-threaded apps in ~3 - 4 years (far better presence than currently exists, not as extensive as possible).

But the EFI32 systems may be an exception to the rule for certain uses. Sad, but there's no way to upgrade the firmware, and Apple seems to have zero interest in supporting those systems for much longer (drops as soon as the K64 only version of OS X ships). :(

[Concorde Rules]

*yawn* quit posting this on every thread you touch. I just kicked open iTunes and my CPU utilization is at < 1%. IT DOES NOT AFFECT ALL USERS!

Your misinformed.

They all do it, the point is it DOES NOT show on the CPU utilisation monitor.

Even the two in the apple store did it.

Download Xbench, run it with audio playing, then without. You will gain 25% performance.

Download iStat Menus. Look at the CPU temperature rise and the power usage rise by 50W, which has been confirmed by a meter.

Im sure, you will fine what we are banging on about.

Look here: http://www.thunder-keep.co.uk/site/macproissue/xbench_tests.jpg

[splitpea]

I'm using an '05 G5 tower, almost 5 years old now, and the only reason it won't last me another 2-3 years is the change in processor platform combined with a business need for particular software packages that aren't available for PPC at this point.

Since it seems unlikely that Apple will introduce another major architecture change any time soon (and since they'll be supporting the current architecture for several years afterwards), there's no reason your tower shouldn't keep going another 3-5 years.

Heck, I've known Macs that were still in everyday use after more than 10 years -- maybe not useful for the latest media editing at that point, but still in working condition and perfectly good for word processing and email and such.

[Disc Golfer]

I'm on my Powerbook G4 1.5 ghz from May 04 and it's still running just fine. :) Though I don't ask a whole lout out of it. Not quite seven years as I plan to upgrade to a macbook pro soon, but not because this one is broken. I'm looking forward to the difference in hardware, and seeing what's new since 10.4.11. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this powerbook once I get the new one however.

[mason.kramer]

If this thread is, as I strongly suspect, a thinly disguised bragging spot for those who bought the 2006 era Mac Pros have and seen their computers remain substantially competitive with cutting-edge products from four years later,

then yes

Please register me as one smugly satisfied owner of such a device.

I also wish to register at this time that I paid the same for an 8 hw-core, 3ghz Xeon in 2007 as you could pay for a 2.93ghz 8 hw-core Mac Pro today.

And it looks like ain't much changing in 2010, except four more hw cores available.

[hugodrax]

The Mac pro is one of the best kept secrets in terms of a professional trading workstation :)


Also I think HW have gotten way ahead of software. Back in the days every upgrade was needed to keep things running. But systems today rival high end crays of a few years ago.

[splitpea]

I also wish to register at this time that I paid the same for an 8 hw-core, 3ghz Xeon in 2007 as you could pay for a 2.93ghz 8 hw-core Mac Pro today.

Am I alone in thinking that's ridiculous?

[mason.kramer]

Am I alone in thinking that's ridiculous?

Well, in fairness, the 2009 model is more power efficient, it has hyperthreading, and these plus some extra x86 extensions make it quite a bit better for video encoding and a few other tasks that I perform on occasion. It also has a better video card. But yes, the old ones really held value well. I don't see why that's ridiculous though.

[nanofrog]

If this thread is, as I strongly suspect, a thinly disguised bragging spot for those who bought the 2006 era Mac Pros have and seen their computers remain substantially competitive with cutting-edge products from four years later,

then yes

Please register me as one smugly satisfied owner of such a device.

I also wish to register at this time that I paid the same for an 8 hw-core, 3ghz Xeon in 2007 as you could pay for a 2.93ghz 8 hw-core Mac Pro today.

And it looks like ain't much changing in 2010, except four more hw cores available.
Depending on what you're doing, the EFI32 firmware could limit you in the near future though.

For example, the GTX285 won't work in that system, and there's no way to be certain how much longer ATI's offerings will continue to work (they use EBC based firmware currently, which allows the HD4870 to operate in the '06 - '07 MP's in spite of Apple). Presumably, the HD5870 will as well (if there's in fact a Mac edition), and maybe a generation or two behind it.

It will also loose the ability to upgrade OS X once it goes exclusively K64 (K32 support is dumped), and that's not too far off. Apple's already made an announcement the K64/K32 combination version of OS X is to be short lived. So SL could be the last version you can run (10.8 at the latest). :(

[MultiFinder17]

I'll just throw in here that I was using my Power Mac G4 (Gigabit Ethernet) with two G4s blazing along at 500MHz until March of this year when I upgraded to a mini. I still have the G4 hooked up, and I use it for ripping DVDs and such; just set it and forget it. Your Mac Pro should last you ages, and even after it cannot fulfill its role as your primary machine, then it can always be repurposed for a new role :)

[Maserati7200]

Read the first reply..
I'll answer that with your words...
If progs work and you get your job done,why update. (Pre)press field have practically stagnated (photo,gfx design), music as well (you can run 100 tracks with filters quite easily) and web...and...
Of course video field will need more oompah,but as even the present machines edit 1080p/10bit materiel fluently, it is more concern of the 2K/4K+
editing.
The thing is, we see doing all those things now as really advanced, but who says they will be mainstream or par with the standards of 7 years from now? If you're going to never update your software or workflow, then yes, it could last you until all the components die out. Right now we think 1080p is super hi res video, but as you said, 2K and 4K+ are coming, and there are cameras for sale (http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs/) to the general public (i.e. not custom made) that capture video with that high resolution. When that and other media and applications come along, and they become mainstream (and our old standard are gone, ie 1080p) they won't be able to be edited on your computer, with the software you never updated. If your a wedding photographer and need to shoot wedding videos, they would want HD video, and at that time 1080p would not be considered Hd anymore. My point is, stuff moves on, and you won't be doing productive with a computer that can't handle the standards of this day an age.

[nanofrog]

Right now we think 1080p is super hi res video, but as you said, 2K and 4K+ are coming,....
The question is when though. Such tech moves slowly in the US. Just look how long it took to go from NTSC to 1080p. ;)

Hopefully it will happen faster with the 1080p to the next spec transition, but there's no way to be sure it will. Corporations like to move as slowly as possible, in order to milk an existing tech for all they can in terms of profits. :eek: :p

I can almost hear the "it's too expensive" excuse now... ;) :p

[disconap]

The question is when though. Such tech moves slowly in the US. Just look how long it took to go from NTSC to 1080p. ;)

Hopefully it will happen faster with the 1080p to the next spec transition, but there's no way to be sure it will. Corporations like to move as slowly as possible, in order to milk an existing tech for all they can in terms of profits. :eek: :p

I can almost hear the "it's too expensive" excuse now... ;) :p

To be fair, R&D (or licensing, in the case of overseas tech) isn't cheap. I know a guy who works at Intel, just from the small amount of info he's let slip to me when drunk, you'd be astounded at what they have working prototypes for right now. So why is a 6-core chip the next step? Because millions of dollars were put into developing it and need to be earned back. Plus the supporting tech (mobos, RAM, etc.) are all in the same cycles and, as such, not on the market to support, say, a 32-core 128-bit consumer grade chip.

And do we need higher than 1080 for tv/film? I mean, I'm already seeing way more than I want to when I watch TV with it, I kept my Trinitron just so I don't have to see nose hairs and pores and the like.

[nanofrog]

To be fair, R&D (or licensing, in the case of overseas tech) isn't cheap. I know a guy who works at Intel, just from the small amount of info he's let slip to me when drunk, you'd be astounded at what they have working prototypes for right now. So why is a 6-core chip the next step? Because millions of dollars were put into developing it and need to be earned back. Plus the supporting tech (mobos, RAM, etc.) are all in the same cycles and, as such, not on the market to support, say, a 32-core 128-bit consumer grade chip.
With computer tech, yes. You space out the improvements to make money (in general).

I was thinking about how long the old NTSC standards lasted. Particularly the broadcasting equipment (infrastructure investments were there, but rather slow in pace). There's similarities, but also some differences. The newer tech had been developed and was deployable, but the changes were resisted and set further back until they had no choice. We still have a bit of a hodge-podge, as the current HDTV models are capable of 1080p, yet there's little 1080p source material. Satellite for example is typically MPEG-4 compressed 1080i. Over the air may only be 720p.

Most infrastructure based systems are that way. ISP/land line systems, and wireless service can be looked at in the same manner (particularly smart phone web access on AT&T in the NYC and San Francisco markets that's been brought up recently on MR's front page). Updates are done slowly so they can make plenty off of it. And there's the fact not much has been set aside to cover the necessary upgrades either (i.e. chose to put the vast majority of profits into dividends rather than the infrastructure that generates that income).

And do we need higher than 1080 for tv/film? I mean, I'm already seeing way more than I want to when I watch TV with it, I kept my Trinitron just so I don't have to see nose hairs and pores and the like.
Some might want more, and given the idea of pushing the screen size (i.e. wall sized image), it will make sense. On small sets, 4k+ might be a bit much. ;)

[Macinposh]

The thing is, we see doing all those things now as really advanced, but who says they will be mainstream or par with the standards of 7 years from now?........Right now we think 1080p is super hi res video, but as you said, 2K and 4K+ are coming....


Dream on,as Aerosmith sings...

Most of the 1st world countries have not even gone HD yet...As said,the infrastucture to send it (cable,internet,terrestial) is not there,and wont be for few years. 100% HD coverage+Content will be achieved maybe 2020 in europe? Third world? Hmm...2050?

And dont get started on the 2k/4k debakle... Toshiba/Texas intstruments just rolled out first 4k projectors. That even cinemas theatres would go full digital (1080p or 2k) will take years.
Let alone getting a fancy 4k display to the backwoods of minnesota and some content to go with it...

So,1080p will be the max for 99.9% users for the next decade.

[mooblie]

...Most of the 1st world countries have not even gone HD yet...As said,the infrastucture to send it (cable,internet,terrestial) is not there,and wont be for few years. 100% HD coverage+Content will be achieved maybe 2020 in europe?......

Just a point of information: HD (by satellite) is broadcast here in Europe now, and is obviously pan-European. Free, even, from the BBC HD on Freesat :), yet chargeable from Sky HD :(. But I expect you knew all that.

Admittedly, the other delivery means you mention (cable, internet, terrestrial) are playing bandwidth-catchup and mass-rollout-catchup.

[Macinposh]

Just a point of information: HD (by satellite) is broadcast here in Europe now, and is obviously pan-European. Free, even, from the BBC HD on Freesat :), yet chargeable from Sky HD :(. But I expect you knew all that.

Admittedly, the other delivery means you mention (cable, internet, terrestrial) are playing bandwidth-catchup and mass-rollout-catchup.

Yes.:)

Around here,about 50% people belong to cable tv households (free,only main channels.)
About 10% of the cable households have pay-tv.(cable tv as americans say)
Of those about 5%-10% have HD content.

On top of that,maybe 2% of the total population use satelite tv,of wich,maybe the same 10% have HD channels.

So,in of the total population maybe (i suck at math) 1% of the population sees HD materiel atm?
So only 99% does not...
Okay,that varies in europe,but if I would say 5% of the people watch HD content,there is still 95% that does not.
And to get the rest 95% on board the ship is going to be one hell of a struggle! Let alone 4k shizniz..

[akadmon]

So,in of the total population maybe (i suck at math) 1% of the population sees HD materiel atm?

Your numbers can't be right. Go to any major store in the US where TVs are sold and you'll be hard pressed to find an SD set. You mean to tell me that >90% of people buying HDTVs watch standard cable/satellite, or worse yet, hook up their fancy new TV to a $9.99 set of rabbit ears? :eek::rolleyes:

[disconap]

Your numbers can't be right. Go to any major store in the US where TVs are sold and you'll be hard pressed to find an SD set. You mean to tell me that >90% of people buying HDTVs watch standard cable/satellite, or worse yet, hook up their fancy new TV to a $9.99 set of rabbit ears? :eek::rolleyes:

Probably not. But because stores stock something doesn't mean people are buying it. Or even if they are, that a large percentage of the population is. I agree that almost anyone who is buying a new TV is buying an HD capable, most likely flat panel. But how many people are buying new tvs? When was the last time you bought a new TV? For me it was 2002, and I'm still using it and probably will for another 5-10 years...

[Macinposh]

Your numbers can't be right. Go to any major store in the US where TVs are sold and you'll be hard pressed to find an SD set. You mean to tell me that >90% of people buying HDTVs watch standard cable/satellite, or worse yet, hook up their fancy new TV to a $9.99 set of rabbit ears? :eek::rolleyes:

Yep.

Sad,isnt it?
Around here (north europe),we just moved from analog to digital (terrestial) and the next push is all HD transmissions...in 2017.
Untill that it is what you order via cable or satellite. And atm,it is about 15 channels of upressed,compressed,720i shittyness.

And the best part is that when the terrestial HD transmissions start,over half of the present HD televisions wont be able to watch them due to incompatibilites. You need to buy a external HD box then for the transmissions.
Nice,isnt it!?

[sidewinder]

Let's assume for a moment that I bought the latest greatest Mac Pro today and Apple and third-party software companies would support the hardware with the latest version of Mac OS or their software through 2017.

There is no way I would still be using that Mac Pro as my main system 7 years from now. Why? Because that Mac Pro is going to be a dog compared to what is out 7 years from now.

Moore's law is the reason.

S-

[TheSpaz]

If you have an intel Mac Pro, you're pretty much all set for a long time.

There is NO indication that the next OS will be K64. Even if it *is* K64, there is no indication that the EFI32 machines won't boot into it (just because they can't right now is not an indication).

Everything you hear about Apple dropping support for 2006-2007 Mac Pro's in the next OS update is pure speculation. These machines still have a TON of power.

In fact, my Mac Pro is faster today than it was when I bought it. I think that's pretty amazing. I still have plenty of RAM slots left to fill and most of the software doesn't even use up all of it's processing power.

The Mac Pro is a lot different than the G5, because I don't see Apple moving to a different processor platform anytime soon.

I think it's awesome that my first gen Mac Pro is getting faster and faster. That's not what you would normally expect from a 4 year old computer.

[alent1234]

with the Mac resale values it's cheaper to buy a new one every year or two than to keep a computer for 7 years

[joe.pelayo]

For the record I am creating this post from a '06 Power Mac (Dual PowerPC 970 @ 2.0GHz). Even though it is has 'merely' 2GB of RAM it runs very well.
According to the 'computer guy' who set it up for me (I am the second user) there were some minor ventilation issues thanks to accumulated dust, and some times the fan starts going as crazy (and the system hangs), but I think that if proper care had been given to it since the beginning there were nothing to be worried about. Anyway, aside from those really rare episodes (which happen when I sit her idle for a long time), it is a magnificent beast that gets my work done.

I can also vouch for a statement previously posted by another fellow saying that PCs could last many years, because I still have my very first machine (2000) and it still works (granted, a bit slow for today standards, but I still can play some games on it and it could be set up as a file server or something). So, accidents aside, it mostly depends on the user; and even the best machines need some maintenance from time to time.

Thanks,
Joe.

[nanofrog]

If you have an intel Mac Pro, you're pretty much all set for a long time.

There is NO indication that the next OS will be K64. Even if it *is* K64, there is no indication that the EFI32 machines won't boot into it (just because they can't right now is not an indication).

Everything you hear about Apple dropping support for 2006-2007 Mac Pro's in the next OS update is pure speculation. These machines still have a TON of power.

In fact, my Mac Pro is faster today than it was when I bought it. I think that's pretty amazing. I still have plenty of RAM slots left to fill and most of the software doesn't even use up all of it's processing power.

The Mac Pro is a lot different than the G5, because I don't see Apple moving to a different processor platform anytime soon.

I think it's awesome that my first gen Mac Pro is getting faster and faster. That's not what you would normally expect from a 4 year old computer.
Apple's made it clear that they're going to go K64 exclusively. It's also the general direction by other systems as well. Apple's not leading the pack here, but attempting to catch up.

As K64 can only run on EFI64 systems, and is likely to remain the case. :(

[TheSpaz]

Apple's made it clear that they're going to go K64 exclusively. It's also the general direction by other systems as well. Apple's not leading the pack here, but attempting to catch up.

As K64 can only run on EFI64 systems, and is likely to remain the case. :(

That's not true. You don't need a 64bit EFI to run a 64bit kernel. It's an artificial limitation set by Apple.

Also, why did Apple decide not to make the first and second Mac Pro 64bit EFI? What were they thinking? Make a 64bit processor and then put in a 32bit EFI?

[leekohler]

Just as a note--I run on a first gen G5 PPC 2X2.0gHz. I've done some decent upgrades on it, but it is an almost 7 year old machine and it is still my main computer for everything I do (professional graphics and audio mostly, along with heavy almost server level tasks for in-house). I expect to have to upgrade next year solely because my clients will eventually request CS5, and CS5 will be Intel only.

So yes, in theory a Mac tower (specifically, due to the fact that you can keep upgrading to pick up speed here and there, but likely the current line of i5-i7 iMacs) should, based on previous example, last you 5-7 years no sweat, provided you aren't shooting pro-grade full-length HD films or animations, or mapping the human genome or anything. On the flip of that, however, I am very familiar with the workings and longevity of the PPC line; I have not yet owned an Intel Mac, so I don't know if there is a shorter lifespan or not, though I would assume Apple wouldn't put together machines that are sub-par, it's part of the point of buying Apple to begin with...


I've got the last dual core 2.0 G5 and I'm able to edit HD with no trouble at all. I did upgrade the video card to a Radeon x1900 and 8 gigs of RAM (will take it to 16 before it's done for), which I'm sure helps. It's about 4 years old, and I plan to keep it at least another two years. Towers are amazing.

I also have a 2.4 Penryn black MacBook. It is slightly faster at some tasks than the G5. But when it comes to burning discs and processing video files, there is no comparison. The G5 beats the pants off the MacBook- probably due to the fact that the G5 can hold more RAM, has a faster hard drive, and a faster burner.

That said- I feel I'll have the MacBook for at least 5 years as well. It's already 2 years old, and I see absolutely no reason to replace it anytime soon. The Intel Macs should live as long, if not longer than the PPCs.

[disconap]

Let's assume for a moment that I bought the latest greatest Mac Pro today and Apple and third-party software companies would support the hardware with the latest version of Mac OS or their software through 2017.

There is no way I would still be using that Mac Pro as my main system 7 years from now. Why? Because that Mac Pro is going to be a dog compared to what is out 7 years from now.

Moore's law is the reason.

S-

Moore's law doesn't apply to what is or is not useful to you. Just because in 7 years the average chip will hold 8-16X the transistors doesn't make a machine more or less useful, it just makes newer ones more extravagant.

I have a friend who is an author and makes...well, let's just say he's very, very comfortable. We writes his books on a Pismo. I asked him if he was ever going to upgrade and his response was "when it breaks"...

[nanofrog]

That's not true. You don't need a 64bit EFI to run a 64bit kernel. It's an artificial limitation set by Apple.
I understand what you're getting at, but Apple wants to drop the 32bit support completely, and presumably use VM to allow 32bit applications to run in a pure 64 bit environment.

It reduces their workload, and they've no interest in supporting the EFI32 systems any longer anyway. Not even by issuing an EFI64 update to those systems, as it wouldn't give such users any "motivation" to get a new model so they can continue to upgrade the OS and 64bit hardware. It also happens to be cheaper for Apple to do this (no developmental resources spent, or support requirements either). Since hardware is where Apple earns their profits, it's a self-serving way of increasing their profits (just plain old fashioned greed).

Also, why did Apple decide not to make the first and second Mac Pro 64bit EFI? What were they thinking? Make a 64bit processor and then put in a 32bit EFI?
That's the $64K question... ;)

[TheSpaz]

I understand what you're getting at, but Apple wants to drop the 32bit support completely, and presumably use VM to allow 32bit applications to run in a pure 64 bit environment.

It reduces their workload, and they've no interest in supporting the EFI32 systems any longer anyway. Not even by issuing an EFI64 update to those systems, as it wouldn't give such users any "motivation" to get a new model so they can continue to upgrade the OS and 64bit hardware. It also happens to be cheaper for Apple to do this (no developmental resources spent, or support requirements either). Since hardware is where Apple earns their profits, it's a self-serving way of increasing their profits (just plain old fashioned greed).


That's the $64K question... ;)

It's not fair for Apple to drop us. Our machines are still very powerful and they're not lagging behind at all. My machine is faster than it's ever been and I don't really see it as being obsolete at all. It's not even close to obsolete in my eyes. I just hate how they choose to force obsolete these machines artificially, even though they are capable of much more than they're given credit for.

I'm sure that if Apple forces us to stay at Snow Leopard due to the K64, then hackers will find a way around it and allow these "legacy" machines to boot into the newest OS. Once it's booted, it will run just as well as any modern Mac today.

[frimple]

Your misinformed.

They all do it, the point is it DOES NOT show on the CPU utilisation monitor.

Even the two in the apple store did it.

Download Xbench, run it with audio playing, then without. You will gain 25% performance.

Download iStat Menus. Look at the CPU temperature rise and the power usage rise by 50W, which has been confirmed by a meter.

Im sure, you will fine what we are banging on about.

Look here: http://www.thunder-keep.co.uk/site/macproissue/xbench_tests.jpg

LOL, XBench

[nanofrog]

It's not fair for Apple to drop us. Our machines are still very powerful and they're not lagging behind at all. My machine is faster than it's ever been and I don't really see it as being obsolete at all. It's not even close to obsolete in my eyes. I just hate how they choose to force obsolete these machines artificially, even though they are capable of much more than they're given credit for.
I agree. It's a trajedy that Apple's so willing to dump support on those systems, as they're no where near EOL (even that planned by Intel), and there's usually some life left in them after that (downline usage).

As they are now, you can use it as a Windows workstation, and have a 64bit OS (Linux too for that matter). It's a little harder to make it work (has to do with file delimters with the Windows installation media due to the specific ISO specifications involved), but there is a work-around.

Video/graphics use could continue to be done that way, rather than get a new MP. The deciding factor will be the software investments made, and to a lesser extent, the user's familiarity with the Windows versions. Some use both OS X and Windows (3D specific applications work better or don't exist under OS X) from what I've seen posted.

I'm sure that if Apple forces us to stay at Snow Leopard due to the K64, then hackers will find a way around it and allow these "legacy" machines to boot into the newest OS. Once it's booted, it will run just as well as any modern Mac today.
Maybe. If it's possible (given the specific implementation of OS X at that point) and the right person is motivated, it could happen.

[sidewinder]

Moore's law doesn't apply to what is or is not useful to you. Just because in 7 years the average chip will hold 8-16X the transistors doesn't make a machine more or less useful, it just makes newer ones more extravagant.

I have a friend who is an author and makes...well, let's just say he's very, very comfortable. We writes his books on a Pismo. I asked him if he was ever going to upgrade and his response was "when it breaks"...

This is so wrong on so many levels......

Extravagant??? Do you know what that word means? Because the context you use it in makes no sense.

Don't forget that you are posting in the Mac Pro forum and not one of the consumer-grade Mac forums.

Let's assume for a moment that I have a 2009 Mac Pro because I need the horsepower. Seven years from now when the Mac Pro has 8 or more times the horsepower that the current Mac Pro has, what makes you think that the 2009 Mac Pro would be adequate for my needs? What makes you think that the latest software of 2017 is going to run just fine on the current hardware?

I have never in my life found 7 year old computer hardware to be adquate for my needs. Why should that change now? I am not your friend using the Pismo. I can guarantee that in 2017, I will find the 2017 Mac Pro (or whatever the top of line system is called then) more useful than a 2009 Mac Pro.

S-

[Cassie]

This is so wrong on so many levels......

Extravagant??? Do you know what that word means? Because the context you use it in makes no sense.

Don't forget that you are posting in the Mac Pro forum and not one of the consumer-grade Mac forums.

Let's assume for a moment that I have a 2009 Mac Pro because I need the horsepower. Seven years from now when the Mac Pro has 8 or more times the horsepower that the current Mac Pro has, what makes you think that the 2009 Mac Pro would be adequate for my needs? What makes you think that the latest software of 2017 is going to run just fine on the current hardware?

I have never in my life found 7 year old computer hardware to be adquate for my needs. Why should that change now? I am not your friend using the Pismo. I can guarantee that in 2017, I will find the 2017 Mac Pro (or whatever the top of line system is called then) more useful than a 2009 Mac Pro.

S-
Only if you keep trying to use the latest software. Stick with the current versions that it runs so well, and you're set for a very long time.

[nanofrog]

Only if you keep trying to use the latest software. Stick with the current versions that it runs so well, and you're set for a very long time.
:eek: But you'll miss all the new features. ;) :p

Seriously, there will be cases where the old software will do, but specifications, filetypes,... change and an updated version (maybe not the absolute newest), will be needed to perform a needed task.

Software doesn't stand still either. :rolleyes: ;)

[sidewinder]

Only if you keep trying to use the latest software. Stick with the current versions that it runs so well, and you're set for a very long time.

I can't believe people are making posts like this. Let's all go back to to 2002....jeez!

S-

[akadmon]

Probably not. But because stores stock something doesn't mean people are buying it. Or even if they are, that a large percentage of the population is. I agree that almost anyone who is buying a new TV is buying an HD capable, most likely flat panel. But how many people are buying new tvs? When was the last time you bought a new TV? For me it was 2002, and I'm still using it and probably will for another 5-10 years...

I paid ~3K for a 50" LCD Sony (1080i) it still works great, but I won't hesitate replacing it with a new TV if something major goes wrong. I can get a same size 1080p TV for half the price I paid for this one in 2003. HDTVs have really gotten inexpensive, and the amount of HD content available today is >10 times larger than it was back then (at least in the US) -- I really don't understand why anyone would want hold on to their old SD TV just because it still works :confused:

Back on topic, my 2006 MP (fresh out of Apple Care) is humming along just fine, thank you. I expect to hold on to it for at least another 3 years, unless it breaks down requiring more the $500 worth of parts and labor. Do I sound like a hypocrite? I hope not :) BTW, a couple weeks ago I bet nanofrog a case of Sam Adams that the next Apple OS will still support my ancient MP. He is yet to make a counter-bet. I gather he's not really so sure that 10.7 will mark the end of the road for MP 1,1 :D

[hyram]

I really don't understand why anyone would want hold on to their old SD TV just because it still works :confused:


Apparently you've never had parents. :)

[TheSpaz]

I paid ~3K for a 50" LCD Sony (1080i) it still works great, but I won't hesitate replacing it with a new TV if something major goes wrong. I can get a same size 1080p TV for half the price I paid for this one in 2003. HDTVs have really gotten inexpensive, and the amount of HD content available today is >10 times larger than it was back then (at least in the US) -- I really don't understand why anyone would want hold on to their old SD TV just because it still works :confused:

Back on topic, my 2006 MP (fresh out of Apple Care) is humming along just fine, thank you. I expect to hold on to it for at least another 3 years, unless it breaks down requiring more the $500 worth of parts and labor. Do I sound like a hypocrite? I hope not :) BTW, a couple weeks ago I bet nanofrog a case of Sam Adams that the next Apple OS will still support my ancient MP. He is yet to make a counter-bet. I gather he's not really so sure that 10.7 will mark the end of the road for MP 1,1 :D

I'm with you bro. Sometimes I get mad and want to sell this Mac Pro and buy a new one, but then I remember that it's just as capable as the new ones and it's running perfectly.

By the way... if enough people complained about not being able to run a k64 OS, do you think Apple would issue an update for these machines? I mean we could say that Apple advertised them as 64bit machines.

[derrick1051]

I bought my mac in JUNE of 2003 and not a single problem or replacement yet. Perfect! Only thing is..its hella slowwwww rendering video. Waiting for the new mac Pro in Spring



Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?

I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.

[netdog]

...with my early 2008 octo and I am still VERY happy. It has a long life ahead of it, even if the ones coming out in 2010 do look to be incredibly fast.

[nanofrog]

... if enough people complained about not being able to run a k64 OS, do you think Apple would issue an update for these machines? I mean we could say that Apple advertised them as 64bit machines.
Unfortunately, I don't think so. From a technical standard it did what they claimed at the time it was sold (K32 that ran 64bit applications). But there's nothing in writing (i.e. contract between the user and vendor), let alone a law, that forces Apple to support a system in terms of issuing/releasing the latest hardware or firmware standards to keep it on the cutting edge for a set period of time (hope this makes sense). Simply put, they can cease support when they wish, and treat them like consumer systems rather than enterprise units, despite the use of Xeon processors. :(

...with my early 2008 octo and I am still VERY happy. It has a long life ahead of it, even if the ones coming out in 2010 do look to be incredibly fast.
The '08 systems are the best value they've made so far with the Intel based MP's IMO. :D

It's fast, has EFI64, and doesn't make 3rd party internal RAID more difficult (they didn't use PCB traces used to handle the SATA port data as is the case with the '09 systems). So it's going to be able to accept 64bit hardware (i.e. graphics cards) and run exclusively K64 based OS X when it arrives.

[xraydoc]

My 2006 2.66GHz Mac Pro is running like a champ.

Still looking for a way to justify its replacement :D

Actually, I do have a few pieces of software that could make use of a faster machine, particularly Osirix. What I'm really waiting for is for the 8-core machines to come down in price a bit. Which, knowing Apple, I don't see happening any time soon.

[nanofrog]

My 2006 2.66GHz Mac Pro is running like a champ.

Still looking for a way to justify its replacement :D

Actually, I do have a few pieces of software that could make use of a faster machine, particularly Osirix. What I'm really waiting for is for the 8-core machines to come down in price a bit. Which, knowing Apple, I don't see happening any time soon.
Maybe a used '08 Octad or even a 3.2GHz '08 Octad in the refurbished store?
It's been going for the same price as the base '09 Octad, and it completely out-performs it. :eek: :D

[synth3tik]

I would sure hope to get 7 years out of my 06 MP. Although to do so will take some good care and preventative maintenance. I am sure my MP will still be powerful enough to last that long. I bought it with that in mind.

However I have done a fair amount of work on it as well. Right now I need to replace the optical drive doors. I was able to get the top one to open but the plastic tab that the drive door itself hits to open it is busted. It looks like I might also have to replace the airport card soon as that seems to be acting up.

The Mac Pro was made to work on. Not as much as say the G3s and G4s. (I miss having the board on the access panel) With that type of design we are able to get more out of the Mac Pro vs. say an iMac that is not as accessible
.
I guess it really is much like a car. Taking care of it goes along way, and that may require replacing things from time to time.

Any performance issues I have had are due to the software and not the hardware performance.

[TheSpaz]

I would sure hope to get 7 years out of my 06 MP. Although to do so will take some good care and preventative maintenance. I am sure my MP will still be powerful enough to last that long. I bought it with that in mind.

However I have done a fair amount of work on it as well. Right now I need to replace the optical drive doors. I was able to get the top one to open but the plastic tab that the drive door itself hits to open it is busted. It looks like I might also have to replace the airport card soon as that seems to be acting up.

The Mac Pro was made to work on. Not as much as say the G3s and G4s. (I miss having the board on the access panel) With that type of design we are able to get more out of the Mac Pro vs. say an iMac that is not as accessible
.
I guess it really is much like a car. Taking care of it goes along way, and that may require replacing things from time to time.

Any performance issues I have had are due to the software and not the hardware performance.

For real bro. There's not much software that truly challenges my Mac Pro. My computer still runs better than brand new.

[sidewinder]

For real bro. There's not much software that truly challenges my Mac Pro. My computer still runs better than brand new.

Bro? Are we at a kegger or something?

Regardless, your old Mac Pro does not run as well as the newer 2008 or 2009 Mac Pro systems. In fact, it gets crushed by both. Especially the 8 core models. Add in the fact that you Mac Pro is stuck with a 32-bit kernel and limited memory because of that, you can see why a 7 year life span is not reasonable. If it is for you and your system, it means you bought way more machine than you needed.

S-

[disconap]

This is so wrong on so many levels......

Extravagant??? Do you know what that word means? Because the context you use it in makes no sense.

Actually, the context I used it in makes exact sense. "Spending more than needed" is a general definition; for 90% of Mac workstation users, buying a top tier Mac Pro is extravagant. It doesn't mean they don't want it, mind. ;)


Don't forget that you are posting in the Mac Pro forum and not one of the consumer-grade Mac forums.

Let's assume for a moment that I have a 2009 Mac Pro because I need the horsepower. Seven years from now when the Mac Pro has 8 or more times the horsepower that the current Mac Pro has, what makes you think that the 2009 Mac Pro would be adequate for my needs? What makes you think that the latest software of 2017 is going to run just fine on the current hardware?

Well, for starters I don't know what you do so I don't know if you'd need an octo-xeon, but if you do and you're maxxing it out now, then of course not. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE with needs for above-consumer grade machines has those same needs. For me, I need a tower mostly due to file transfer and storage requirements, as well as additional hardware. For this reason, my 2003 G5 still functions to my needs. It started showing its age THIS year (year 6), and will last another 1-2 years for what I need. One example. Most people fall towards the middle--the current Mac Pros will work fine for them but they are probably not completely taxing their systems, and will probably be ok with it for 2-4 years, possibly longer. They are not "need" people, and "need" people are probably upgrading every year.

So to answer your question, I don't think that a 2009 Mac Pro will or will not meet your requirements in 2017 because I have no idea what your needs are. And I can't compare 8 years, but I CAN tell you that all the pro-grade software I use still works on 6-year old hardware, if a little slower than its previous versions...

I have never in my life found 7 year old computer hardware to be adquate for my needs. Why should that change now? I am not your friend using the Pismo. I can guarantee that in 2017, I will find the 2017 Mac Pro (or whatever the top of line system is called then) more useful than a 2009 Mac Pro.

Right, but I think you're missing the point of my post. Your needs are not mine, my friend's, or anyone else's. Needing a workstation doesn't mean you always need top of the line, and again the point was that Moore's Law isn't particularly applicable, as again it applies to the advance of chips/transistors, not of usability. Hell, the market doesn't even really reflect Moore's Law; in practical terms it applies a lot more to R&D, which is almost always 2-4 years ahead minimum of the market...

[disconap]

I paid ~3K for a 50" LCD Sony (1080i) it still works great, but I won't hesitate replacing it with a new TV if something major goes wrong. I can get a same size 1080p TV for half the price I paid for this one in 2003. HDTVs have really gotten inexpensive, and the amount of HD content available today is >10 times larger than it was back then (at least in the US) -- I really don't understand why anyone would want hold on to their old SD TV just because it still works :confused:

I hear you, but we both live on the coasts. There's a ton of folk in between us to whom tech and things like HD really don't mean much to. There are plenty of people on the coasts this is true for too, and I'm sure a decent number in the middle who feel like you. Just saying everyone has different priorities...

As for SD, mine is SD because I spend most of my time at work, and I watch very little TV, so it isn't worth it to me to spend money to get a shinier version of TV, especially when I mostly just watch DVDs on it, which look just fine for my needs. But either way, it's not so much how much they cost as that they are an expense, and a lot of people (everywhere, especially right now) can't afford a new expense. And if you can (which I am happy to say at the moment I am fortunate enough to be in that club), you should buy what you want. ;)

Back on topic, my 2006 MP (fresh out of Apple Care) is humming along just fine, thank you. I expect to hold on to it for at least another 3 years, unless it breaks down requiring more the $500 worth of parts and labor. Do I sound like a hypocrite? I hope not :) BTW, a couple weeks ago I bet nanofrog a case of Sam Adams that the next Apple OS will still support my ancient MP. He is yet to make a counter-bet. I gather he's not really so sure that 10.7 will mark the end of the road for MP 1,1 :D

Mmm, Sammy. (also my mayor's name, btw)

And no, you don't, you sound rational. You spend money on your wants and needs, and don't upgrade just because you can, or there's something shinier. That seems logical to me...

[TheSpaz]

Bro? Are we at a kegger or something?

Regardless, your old Mac Pro does not run as well as the newer 2008 or 2009 Mac Pro systems. In fact, it gets crushed by both. Especially the 8 core models. Add in the fact that you Mac Pro is stuck with a 32-bit kernel and limited memory because of that, you can see why a 7 year life span is not reasonable. If it is for you and your system, it means you bought way more machine than you needed.

S-

First of all... I didn't call you bro.

My Mac Pro still too powerful for me. If I bought a brand new one today, I wouldn't even notice a speed difference. Almost all of my apps open in less than one bounce right now and every app is responsive as hell. Also, Logic Express never slows down and it handles the huge projects I throw at it with ease. So yes, my Mac Pro is equivalent to a brand new computer to me. The only thing it lacks right now is the choice of graphics cards, but my 8800GT flies in Windows 7 64bit and I don't play many games in OS X.

Fact is, I can't justify a new Mac Pro when I don't really need one. My first gen Pro is more than enough for me right now.

[akadmon]

Bro? Are we at a kegger or something?

Regardless, your old Mac Pro does not run as well as the newer 2008 or 2009 Mac Pro systems. In fact, it gets crushed by both. Especially the 8 core models. Add in the fact that you Mac Pro is stuck with a 32-bit kernel and limited memory because of that, you can see why a 7 year life span is not reasonable. If it is for you and your system, it means you bought way more machine than you needed.

S-

I think benchmarking programs results do not translate world performance. Your 2009 Mac Pro is is just as likely to be limited by hard drive access/read/write times as my 2006 Mac Pro, no matter how many cores you're running and how much faster your RAM is. So what on paper looks like a 5X difference is likely to be <2X for 90% of the software currently on the market.

For what I do (Lightroom, Photoshop, some light video editing, running Windows games and MS Office), speed is a non issue with my 1,1 MP. I doubt that spending $3K+ on the newest MP would make me feel like I made a worthwhile investment.

[sidewinder]

I think benchmarking programs results do not translate world performance. Your 2009 Mac Pro is is just as likely to be limited by hard drive access/read/write times as my 2006 Mac Pro, no matter how many cores you're running and how much faster your RAM is. So what on paper looks like a 5X difference is likely to be <2X for 90% of the software currently on the market.

For what I do (Lightroom, Photoshop, some light video editing, running Windows games and MS Office), speed is a non issue with my 1,1 MP. I doubt that spending $3K+ on the newest MP would make me feel like I made a worthwhile investment.

Before you say all of that with any sense of reality, as the thread title suggests, let 7 years go by instead of 4 years.

7 years prior to the current Mac Pro systems the Power Mac G4 was released with dual 1 GHz processors, a limit of 2GB or RAM, Ultra ATA, and FireWire 400.

That's pathetic.

Try to run what you run now on that system. And there is only 4 years between your system and that Power Mac G4. Compare that Power Mac G4 to the 2009 Mac Pro and it becomes comical.

You guys aren't making any sense. 7 years is too long of a life span unless you are doing nothing of consequence with the system.

S-

[VirtualRain]

Need a new computer? Perhaps every 3 years. (If you can get 7 years out of a Mac Pro, you probably didn't need it in the first place :p)

Want a new computer? Perhaps every 6 months! :D

[AAPLaday]

After 7 years i cant see any computer being used as someones primary machine unless all they need it for is web browsing, playing music and other light tasks.

[cjmillsnun]

Need a new computer? Perhaps every 3 years. (If you can get 7 years out of a Mac Pro, you probably didn't need it in the first place :p)

Want a new computer? Perhaps every 6 months! :D

Depends.

I have more than one computer, and I tend to cascade their roles down every few years.

An example of this is my (sadly dead) G4 Quicksilver.

I bought it as a powerhouse for PS work, it ended its days as a file server (needing next to no processing power). But it gave me useful service for 8 years.

[TheSpaz]

Although I've had this Mac Pro for 4 years now, it's still faster than my brand new MacBook Pro.

This is more computer than I needed 4 years ago and It's still more computer than I need, however, I bought it for the expandability and ruggedness. I was tired of buying a new computer every couple of years.

[nanofrog]

For what I do (Lightroom, Photoshop, some light video editing, running Windows games and MS Office), speed is a non issue with my 1,1 MP. I doubt that spending $3K+ on the newest MP would make me feel like I made a worthwhile investment.
Software availability does play a strong role. Not much is actually multi-threaded to the point it can utilize all the cores or the memory bandwidth in the Nehalem based systems.

Once the software catches up though, that will change. But it's senseless IMO to buy a computer for software that doesn't exist unless there's an announcement of a short time to its release. ;)

As per the Sam Adam's beer, I missed that one. :o I'm not a beer drinker, but Scotch OTOH.... I'm partial to Balvenie. ;) :D

Need a new computer? Perhaps every 3 years. (If you can get 7 years out of a Mac Pro, you probably didn't need it in the first place :p)
True.

Want a new computer? Perhaps every 6 months! :D
That long before the itch strikes?!?! :eek: :D :p

You could go a little crazy and set up a cluster linked together with Infiniband in QDR mode, including storage. ;) That's the truly speed addicted prosumer. :p

[sidewinder]

I'm partial to Balvenie. ;) :D
Now that is something I can unequivocally agree with!!

S-

[rtrt]

1

[TheSpaz]

Ok i can see where that view comes from but if you want the following

Mac OS
Support from apple
Internal expansion
Video card flexibility
Good (not exceptional) performance

Then you must buy a mac pro even tho you might not need everything else that the mp brings to the table.

Thats not an unreasonable set of requirements and the fact that you need to step up to a mp is nothing to do with the purchaser and everything to do with apple.

QTF. This is the reason why I went with Mac Pro instead of an iMac or Mac mini. I wanted something I could put multiple hard drives in (I did), upgrade the graphics card (I did), put tons of RAM in (I did) and serve me for longer than an iMac or Mac mini (it did). So I can't really complain about my Mac Pro. So far, there's nothing it can't do.

[nanofrog]

Now that is something I can unequivocally agree with!!
Really tasty stuff. ;)

Ok i can see where that view comes from but if you want the following

Mac OS
Support from apple
Internal expansion
Video card flexibility
Good (not exceptional) performance

Then you must buy a mac pro even tho you might not need everything else that the mp brings to the table.

Thats not an unreasonable set of requirements and the fact that you need to step up to a mp is nothing to do with the purchaser and everything to do with apple.
I know, and in such cases, the difference between the iMac (particularly the i7 version) and Quad MP isn't that bad. The expandability can concievably extend it's value by allowing upgrades, and actually be less expensive in the long run.

I was thinking more along the lines of an Octad (or more cores when they ship, and what VirtualRain was indicating IMO) only being used as a web browser. Much more of a waste, and it might be better off swapping sooner with lower cost systems (major change in needs not withstanding).

[disconap]

Need a new computer? Perhaps every 3 years. (If you can get 7 years out of a Mac Pro, you probably didn't need it in the first place :p)

Want a new computer? Perhaps every 6 months! :D


Absolutely true. But if your needs are centered around good performance, though not top speeds, and expandability (i.e., you don't have or want to set up a server but need a ton of storage/scratch space or have, say, recording or digital gear that requires PCIx slots), a tower makes sense, so it comes down to whether you want to spend a little bit more for 2 towers during that seven year span, or just once on something that will meet your needs for 7 years. Either approach makes sense; the former requires you to spend a little more (though you might make that back on resale) and go through the buying/selling process, but you will end up with something that is a bit faster by the end of it, and plus you'll get that neat moment when you upgrade and everything is a bit faster than it was. Buying top of the line at first means you spend about the same and you don't have to worry about replacing for quite some time. Either meets your needs, so it's really your personal preference; I would say that in either example it would be silly to be buying the octo model (unless you get a good deal on it).

From my perspective, I tend to buy the best system I possibly can when I need to upgrade, so that I can do my job and not have to worry about upgrading until I reach the point of obsolescence. My needs are, again, still met by my G5, though I have replaced HDDs, upped RAM, upgraded the GPU, and added eSata to achieve what I need currently. Does this work for everyone? Of course not; I'd hate to have to, say, edit HD video with this box, as I doubt it would even be capable, much less adequate. So it's really again about wants and needs. If your requirements aren't for top of the line gear, a 2006 Mac Pro should work pretty solidly in 2011, and probably reach the NEED point around 2013-2014, again depending on your needs (and assuming there isn't another platform change that effects the software you need, like the full 64-bit change that's been mentioned several times here). I got lucky in that CS4 supports PPC still; I won't be so lucky next year.

Do I want a Mac Pro? Oh, totally. But I can't justify the expense until I need it. If I made the kind of money where plunking down $2-4K wasn't a stretch for me, I already would have...

[alleycat]

My previous Mac was a PowerMac 6500, and I got 10 years out of that sucker. Though it wasn't easy for the last couple of years. So I dove in and got a Mac Pro 1,1 in 2007 expecting it to be the best of the next generation. So far it's performance has lived up to expectations. However I certainly don't like the idea of being left out in OS X 10.7 and for Windows 7 drivers. Apple should update the EFI for our machines, otherwise they are purely more interested in selling hardware. For now I wouldn't sweat it, but when OS X 10.7 comes out we'll all have choices to make. I am seriously considering transferring my software licenses to Windows if I'm left out of 10.7.

[Bat Commander]

My previous Mac was a PowerMac 6500, and I got 10 years out of that sucker. Though it wasn't easy for the last couple of years. So I dove in and got a Mac Pro 1,1 in 2007 expecting it to be the best of the next generation. So far it's performance has lived up to expectations. However I certainly don't like the idea of being left out in OS X 10.7 and for Windows 7 drivers. Apple should update the EFI for our machines, otherwise they are purely more interested in selling hardware. For now I wouldn't sweat it, but when OS X 10.7 comes out we'll all have choices to make. I am seriously considering transferring my software licenses to Windows if I'm left out of 10.7.

It's sickening. You think for a Pro computer, you'd get more than a consumer computer.

By the way, even though my aluminum MacBook is 64bit EFI, it won't boot into 64bit kernel and it's incompatible with 64bit Windows 7 drivers. There's a little trick I used to install the 64bit bootcamp drivers and then run fine, so I don't understand why Apple put an artificial limitation on these machines.

Apple BETTER do something for us in the future because I'm sick of being left out in the cold. I bought a PRO computer that was top of the line and this is how I get treated for it?

I would understand if there was a technical reason that I couldn't run the 64bit kernel or the new graphics cards, but the only reason is because Apple won't release a firmware for our machines because they're older.

[Gomff]

I'm split on this one. On the one hand, I agree that 2007 Mac Pro users have been shafted by Apple on the GPU upgrades and EFI.

On the other hand, having used PCs until about three years ago, I really appreciate the reliability of Macs and the generally good service if they go wrong, provided you have Applecare or you're still under warranty. I have a 2007 Macbook Pro running SL and win7 64bit that is still pretty good for most tasks I throw at it, except for rendering. I also have a 2008 Octo Mac Pro which rocks - when I need some horsepower it never lets me down.

Right now there's no money for new hardware so I'm glad I have what I do rather than anything else. To get back on topic I'm hoping to get at least four or maybe even five years out of both machines.

[xraydoc]

My previous Mac was a PowerMac 6500, and I got 10 years out of that sucker. Though it wasn't easy for the last couple of years. So I dove in and got a Mac Pro 1,1 in 2007 expecting it to be the best of the next generation. So far it's performance has lived up to expectations. However I certainly don't like the idea of being left out in OS X 10.7 and for Windows 7 drivers. Apple should update the EFI for our machines, otherwise they are purely more interested in selling hardware. For now I wouldn't sweat it, but when OS X 10.7 comes out we'll all have choices to make. I am seriously considering transferring my software licenses to Windows if I'm left out of 10.7.

Don't assume that it's all roses on the Windows side. There are often motherboard BIOS updates required for new OSs or new processor models, and if your motherboard vendor isn't in the mood, you may end up waiting a long time for the proper updates.

While I agree Apple tends to be fairly short-sighted about maintaining a machines viability several years down the road, many PC vendors aren't much better.

[nanofrog]

Don't assume that it's all roses on the Windows side. There are often motherboard BIOS updates required for new OSs or new processor models, and if your motherboard vendor isn't in the mood, you may end up waiting a long time for the proper updates.

While I agree Apple tends to be fairly short-sighted about maintaining a machines viability several years down the road, many PC vendors aren't much better.
That can be the case with the consumer systems, especially the budget boxes, but not so with enterprise systems. They'd loose customers and substantial income if they just ignored issues. Also, the support time frame for enterprise systems is typically 5 years.

[sidewinder]

That can be the case with the consumer systems, especially the budget boxes, but not so with enterprise systems. They'd loose customers and substantial income if they just ignored issues. Also, the support time frame for enterprise systems is typically 5 years.

Enterprise does not leave old systems in place long enough for it to be a problem. Most replace systems at least every 3 years and often after 2 years.

S-

[nanofrog]

Enterprise does not leave old systems in place long enough for it to be a problem. Most replace systems at least every 3 years and often after 2 years.
I didn't elaborate, but even at a 3yr MTBR, that gives them 2yrs to space the purchases over with 3yrs of support for the newest machine.

What happens after that will depend on specific needs, but they can either be kept in place to continue with their current duties, or if out-grown, downlined to other locations with less intensive usage. ;)

[ncc1701d]

I managed to keep a home built, (read clapped out from the begining) pc through god only knows how many os changes for 7 years. I'm fully expecting to do the same with my macpro (09) - or even longer. I also expect that when I do need to get a new system it will be as a radical change as I made from the windows environment to the mac. As with everyone, it will come down to usage.

[nanofrog]

I managed to keep a home built, (read clapped out from the begining) pc through god only knows how many os changes for 7 years. I'm fully expecting to do the same with my macpro (09) - or even longer. I also expect that when I do need to get a new system it will be as a radical change as I made from the windows environment to the mac. As with everyone, it will come down to usage.
What are you doing that will allow it to last you that long for the same function?
Or do you use multiple systems (or plan to), as you outgrow it for it's primary function to another it's still well suited to?

[VirtualRain]

I managed to keep a home built, (read clapped out from the begining) pc through god only knows how many os changes for 7 years. I'm fully expecting to do the same with my macpro (09) - or even longer. I also expect that when I do need to get a new system it will be as a radical change as I made from the windows environment to the mac. As with everyone, it will come down to usage.

:eek:

Here's my computer history in the last 7 years...
2002 - Intel P4 Northwood (XP on 2x80GB RAID0)
2005 - AMD X2 4400 Athlon64 Toledo (XP on 2x74GB Raptors RAID0)
2007 - Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield (Vista on Areca 1210 w/4x74GB Raptors RAID0)
2009 - Intel Xeon W3540 Quad Bloomfield (OSX on 2x80GB X25-M SSD RAID0)

The biggest improvements in performance were from the single core to dual core, and then mechanical storage to SSD's.

BTW, that 2005 build was a rock-star, it could still be doing HTPC duty today if I hadn't abolished all Windows computers from my household and replaced it with a Mac Mini.

[nanofrog]

:eek:

Here's my computer history in the last 7 years...
2002 - Intel P4 Northwood (XP on 2x80GB RAID0)
2005 - AMD X2 4400 Athlon64 Toledo (XP on 2x74GB Raptors RAID0)
2007 - Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield (Vista on Areca 1210 w/4x74GB Raptors RAID0)
2009 - Intel Xeon W3540 Quad Bloomfield (OSX on 2x80GB X25-M SSD RAID0)

The biggest improvements in performance were from the single core to dual core, and then mechanical storage to SSD's.

BTW, that 2005 build was a rock-star, it could still be doing HTPC duty today if I hadn't abolished all Windows computers from my household and replaced it with a Mac Mini.
Now all you need is another pair of SSD's, and run all 4 on the ARC-1210 in the new machine, and guinea pig that. :eek: ;)

Just don't drool too much, as you could kill the mouse and/or keyboard. :D :p

[VirtualRain]

Now all you need is another pair of SSD's, and run all 4 on the ARC-1210 in the new machine, and guinea pig that. :eek: ;)

Just don't drool too much, as you could kill the mouse and/or keyboard. :D :p

I sold the Areca awhile back... although I toyed with trying it in the MP, it's sooo slow to boot (mind-numbing) and doesn't add a lot of value in RAID0.

However, the empty drive bay in my MP has gotten the better of me, and I just purchased another G1 X25-M off Craigslist (early Xmas present to myself) in hopes of hitting the ICH limit with 3xSSD's in software RAID0. :D

I suspect I won't notice a performance increase (2 drives is as already blazingly fast) but the added 80GB of storage will help a lot. I'll post a thread when I get around to getting the new array setup after Christmas.

[nanofrog]

I sold the Areca awhile back... although I toyed with trying it in the MP, it's sooo slow to boot (mind-numbing) and doesn't add a lot of value in RAID0.
Hmm... I've not used that specific model, but gugucom's indicated it's essentially identical to what I am (ARC-1231ML and ARC-1680ix/12/16 versions) of ~25s for both the firmware POST and PCIe bus test before the option ROM actually kicks in and the OS begins loading. Another 30s after that. It can be annoying though. Given the sytem it was in, there shouldn't be a drastic time difference for the entire system to post (maybe 10 - 15s longer, but that can seem like an eternity to the impatient such as myself... ;)).

But my reasoning for mentioning it, was that you can get past the 660MB/s limit of the ICH10R with it. :D

However, the empty drive bay in my MP has gotten the better of me, and I just purchased another G1 X25-M off Craigslist (early Xmas present to myself) in hopes of hitting the ICH limit with 3xSSD's in software RAID0. :D
Addict. :eek: :D :p

I suspect I won't notice a performance increase (2 drives is as already blazingly fast) but the added 80GB of storage will help a lot. I'll post a thread when I get around to getting the new array setup after Christmas.
:cool: I'll look forward to it. :)

[ncc1701d]

What are you doing that will allow it to last you that long for the same function?
Or do you use multiple systems (or plan to), as you outgrow it for it's primary function to another it's still well suited to?the only reason I went for the MP over anything else was the HDD sizes. Storage of media from itunes and editing. Tested the OS and hardware quality with a 2008 iMac and realised I needed to have huge storage, which the iMac doesn't have. Overkill? Maybe - but I'm enjoying every cent spent so far :)

[Keniff]

Looks like I will probably get 7 years or more out of this 06 Mac Pro. Is this possible or will something break or OS X not be supported in the future?

I have 16GB on this thing, the Apple 4870 512MB card 4x 2.66Mhz, 10.6.2.

It runs games great, Trading on this runs with no issue either. And CPU 96% idle right now.

(This with two virtual machines running on an other spaces, Fedora 12 and XP)

It seems the Macs are long life computers compared to yesteryears desktops.


Funny you should mention this, before I upgraded, I had a PowerMac G4
Dual Optical, I had it about 7 and a half years, and I only upgraded cause all new software I wanted to use was all Intel based.
Otherwise it was a rock solid work horse, and I'm glad I found a good home for it.
I just hope this one will last me as long, before they get us buying into the next thing, that we're all gonna so eFFing need!

;)