7 years lifespan?

[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-

 

[SkyBell]

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.

But you'll miss all the new features.

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.

 

[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

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

 

[hyram]

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

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

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

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]

Almost 2 years on...

...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.

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

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

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.

 

[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

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

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-