7 years lifespan?

[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 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.

I can almost hear the "it's too expensive" excuse now...

 

[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.

I can almost hear the "it's too expensive" excuse now...

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?

 

[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?

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?

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 ******ness.

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.