Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[grue]

ATI and nVidia produce GPU chips and reference designs. It's actually up to the graphics card vendors to make the PC and/or Mac versions if they wish, thinking in terms of 3rd party offerings.

But there is a financial aspect to it, as the market is small. Which means that their motivation is limited at best (not enough potential for profits).

Well, yeah. But for the sake of simplicity in discussion, I just said ATI/NVid…

Apple relys on these companies to provide their cards though, as they don't make their own. They have to use an ODM to supply their offerings.

They don't offer much, as the market is small, so limiting choices to 2x makes sense financially. 3rd party vendors can make Mac compatible cards if they choose.

Yeah, that's a better way of saying what I had in mind. Apple probably doesn't mind doing some of the legwork for the stuff THEY want to sell. The stuff they don't offer as CTO, however…

 

[VirtualRain]

I think you are blinded by what works for you. I am truly happy that you are satisfied with the one pro computer that offers.

The fact that many people might be looking for an 08 when the 10 comes out is a sign that something is maybe not quite right.

I for one have hopes that they are going to appreciate their loyal pro base again, and start offering better value/options, but I could be wrong.

Who knows, maybe the 10 will surprise us????

I don't think I'm blinded by what works for me. I'm really trying to put myself in the shoes of a SOHO professional who's doing video, photography, or music with a sizable investment in software (eg. FCS, CS, Logic), equivalent tools of the trade (a HV40, 5DMk2, etc) but his workstation is getting slow because he's running a 2006 Mac Pro or something.

Back in 2006, a Mac Pro 1,1 cost $3K for 4 cores, 2GB of RAM, and a 250GB drive. This year you can get an entry level 8 core with 6GB of RAM for just $300 more. Is Joe Professional going to be really upset that he doesn't get eSata and FW400 support and switch to a PC? C'mon.

EDIT: What's shocking is that he can still sell his 2006 Mac Pro for about $1000-$1500.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I don't think I'm blinded by what works for me. I'm really trying to put myself in the shoes of a SOHO professional who's doing video, photography, or music with a sizable investment in software (eg. FCS, CS, Logic), equivalent tools of the trade (a HV40, 5DMk2, etc) but his workstation is getting slow because he's running a 2006 Mac Pro or something.

Back in 2006, a Mac Pro 1,1 cost $3K for 4 cores, 2GB of RAM, and a 250GB drive. This year you can get an entry level 8 core with 6GB of RAM for just $300 more. Is Joe Professional going to be really upset that he doesn't get eSata and FW400 support and switch to a PC? C'mon.

EDIT: What's shocking is that he can still sell his 2006 Mac Pro for about $1000-$1500.

If the equivalent (or better) machine is much less on the other side then yeah maybe. Software notwithstanding of course. Yes I could see many people switching because of higher prices, lesser value, and an obvious lack of care on the providers side. You have to look at everything, and that includes competition. You can't just say Apple is/are providing machines that can be bought around 3k still so therefore the pros must remain happy. You simply have to look at the whole picture, and it is kinda bad right now, bottom line.

P.S. Last year I built an X58 based i7 920 machine overclocked to 3.6ghz with 12GB of corsair dominator ram for around a grand. It's not an 8 core but...well just think about it. It was far more capable than just about any mac pro available today, aside from maybe rendering where the 8 cores would help. Not too many other tasks that it would fall behind on though.

 

[milk242]

I always wondered with Apple only built their Mac Pro's with server parts. It's not like they are very successful in the server arena, and seems like the consumer counterparts would be cheaper and better since the majority of software (including Apple's) can't even use all those cores efficiently.

Edit
Plus, what does a photographer, graphics designer, or movie editor need with server parts. All those error checking server components seem like it's more appropriate for scientific work (I don't know how big their scientific computational consumer are but I assume they are smaller compared to the media designers).

 

[Infrared]

This forum is unlike any other enthusiast forum I belong to. So much whining about the price and the company. I don't see this on the BMW or Canon forums where value is also highly subjective (Canon L lenses are priced out of this world).

It's because Apple users are perfectionists

Sorry- but it's a lot of us professionals who are angry. I need a tower. I don't want to pay $3,000 for one though, especially when it's not necessary, Apple merely decides for us. I was more than happy to pay $2,000 for one, even though I thought that was kind of high too. I've been using Macs since the IIe, and the pricing and offerings are getting ridiculous. There is no reason in the world Apple can't offer a mid range tower, and these days in this economy, they should. Businesses are cutting back and looking to trim costs, including the media business. Don;t think for one second that businesses won't leave Apple for Windows if that ends up being a less expensive way to them to stay up to date.

I think it's obvious that professionals have more to lose than hobbyists.

As an unashamed hobbyist, I would not lose a penny of income if Apple
abandoned the "pro" market. I do hope it doesn't come to that, though,
because that's where the excitement lies, in my opinion. Come on, say
this isn't exciting, I dare you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwsn27J_tlo

 

[Umbongo]

I always wondered with Apple only built their Mac Pro's with server parts. It's not like they are very successful in the server arena, and seems like the consumer counterparts would be cheaper and better since the majority of software (including Apple's) can't even use all those cores efficiently.

Edit
Plus, what does a photographer, graphics designer, or movie editor need with server parts. All those error checking server components seem like it's more appropriate for scientific work (I don't know how big their scientific computational consumer are but I assume they are smaller compared to the media designers).

Apple may not be a huge player in the server market, but they need them for internal use and other sources require or desire them. They can't discontinue the dual socket Mac Pro. They need(ed) dual socket to improve on previous models and there are customers utilizing all those cores. No one is really losing anything by Apple using server parts on the single socket Mac Pro. The cost difference to Apple is likely negligible and has no impact on the price to the customer. The benefits are you get processors that are possibly better quality and ECC memory support.

 

[JesterJJZ]

The majority of Pro MacPro users don't care how much they cost. If the next MacPro cost 10 grand and I needed one I wouldn't think twice.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The majority of Pro MacPro users don't care how much they cost. If the next MacPro cost 10 grand and I needed one I wouldn't think twice.

To a point. Cost is relative to how much money you are making with the machine. A business that doesn't care about costs is a business that isn't going to be viable long term.

 

[Toronto Mike]

I primarily use software that is available in Mac/Windows versions.

If Apple will not offer the price/performance that I feel is acceptable to my needs then I will consider switching. From what people are saying, the Windows operating system is getting better and better with this latest version. If viruses are less likely with proper precautions then it might be worth considering.

I do not want to leave Mac, but if they will not offer a mid tower in 3 years I'll be thinking of the alternatives. My usage does not require an entry level $3000 (Canadian) ram crippled tower - with a video card that forces me to buy a $100 adaptor just to drive a second monitor in a dual set up.

Mike

 

[VirtualRain]

P.S. Last year I built an X58 based i7 920 machine overclocked to 3.6ghz with 12GB of corsair dominator ram for around a grand. It's not an 8 core but...well just think about it. It was far more capable than just about any mac pro available today, aside from maybe rendering where the 8 cores would help. Not too many other tasks that it would fall behind on though.

The fact that you can build or buy a computer less than an Apple is nothing new. It's been the case for 25 years. It's not like Joe Professional, who got into Mac Pro's back in the PPC era, or 2006, or at any time, has suddenly realized that Apple is more expensive than a PC. Anyone buying a Mac at any time, whether it was a laptop, mini, iMac, or Mac Pro, did so knowing full well that there were much cheaper alternatives.

I do not want to leave Mac, but if they will not offer a mid tower in 3 years I'll be thinking of the alternatives. My usage does not require an entry level $3000 (Canadian) ram crippled tower - with a video card that forces me to buy a $100 adaptor just to drive a second monitor in a dual set up.

Mike, do you really need more than 8GB of RAM? Even 12GB in tri-channel on the quad is not that expensive. If 8 or 12GB of RAM are not sufficient then I can't understand how you can consider yourself a mid-tower customer... you sound more like a hard-core workstation users and a Mac Pro Octo is probably what you need. Your requirements seem a bit contradictory.

 

[Eric S.]

The fact that you can build or buy a computer less than an Apple is nothing new. It's been the case for 25 years. It's not like Joe Professional, who got into Mac Pro's back in the PPC era, or 2006, or at any time, has suddenly realized that Apple is more expensive than a PC. Anyone buying a Mac at any time, whether it was a laptop, mini, iMac, or Mac Pro, did so knowing full well that there were much cheaper alternatives.

One could always build or buy a cheaper computer than a Mac but only recently can one build or buy a cheaper computer that will run the latest Mac OS, since Apple's switch to commodity parts. The comparison of what Apple provides hardware-wise vs. its competition is much more apparent, and there is less justification for the "Apple tax" given that Apple is essentially building the same hardware platform as other PC vendors.

 

[nanofrog]

I looked there first and then asked the question about the motivation to move to EFI.

I was hoping to see something beyond "because Apple uses it" or the obvious "BIOS is old".

Ah. Understandable.

The premise, is that though BIOS is OS independent, it's not platform independent. That is, it's stuck to the old architecture (Intel 8086), and to get a CPU running, designers had to conform to this.

Intel wanted to be able to design the architecture to be independent of the firmware as well (and retain the OS independence). So they created EFI for the Itanium processor (out of necessity).

Now this doesn't mean much for anything but the Itanium right now, as all of Intel's other CPU's and all of AMD's will run BIOS.

There are a few features in it BIOS can't do. GUI interface, the ablility to run shell for example (rarely used at best), and you can update the firmware from the internet within the firmware (no need to load an OS). It's also supposed to be VM friendly, but with the current CPU designs, BIOS can utilize the VT/VT-d functionality anyway (and properly).

Ultimately however, BIOS has been able to keep up with existing systems, and there's been no real advantages with EFI over BIOS (see the Criticism section at the bottom of the Wiki page).

Here's an article from 2004 that might help give more details, and here's an experimental MSI board running EFI back in 2008 (notice the nice GUI interface vs. what you get with BIOS).

Hope this helps.

One could always build or buy a cheaper computer than a Mac but only recently can one build or buy a cheaper computer that will run the latest Mac OS, since Apple's switch to commodity parts.

I see the ability to build a system that has both additional features (additional DIMM slots, and even PCIe slots; others too, but can technically be "fixed" by adding cards, such as eSATA) and can out-perform the current MP's (i.e. run 1333MHz memory if the right CPU is used - this limitation in the MP is just firmware).

 

[Toronto Mike]

The fact that you can build or buy a computer less than an Apple is nothing new. It's been the case for 25 years. It's not like Joe Professional, who got into Mac Pro's back in the PPC era, or 2006, or at any time, has suddenly realized that Apple is more expensive than a PC. Anyone buying a Mac at any time, whether it was a laptop, mini, iMac, or Mac Pro, did so knowing full well that there were much cheaper alternatives.



Mike, do you really need more than 8GB of RAM? Even 12GB in tri-channel on the quad is not that expensive. If 8 or 12GB of RAM are not sufficient then I can't understand how you can consider yourself a mid-tower customer... you sound more like a hard-core workstation users and a Mac Pro Octo is probably what you need. Your requirements seem a bit contradictory.

Your right - as of this moment I don't need more than 8Gb or Ram. I am happily using 6 Gb now in my G5 with no problems. I might come across sounding more hard core than I am. My concern with the future is the always rapid expansion of software that eats up your hardware's capacity.

One of the reasons why I bought a Nikon D40 was for the smaller files not to tax the system I wanted to continute using. I was using Adobe CS2 Bridge and noticed a significant slow down once I switched to CS4 Bridge. Is this a function of my computer or the new software? I do not know the answer. However, this leads me to thinking that if Apple wants me to pay that kind of money for an entry level tower, than they should give me the much greater ability to add Ram in the future. It's an option that I think you have the right to want when paying these prices. Who knows what is going to happen soon with the new software that might need a vastly greater resource capacity.

I'm on the dividing line in my needs because I can easily use an iMac, but I absolutely hate having the limitations of an all-in-one with no esata port, one hard drive (cannot use a second internal scratch disk), no firewire 400, a graphic card permanently soldered on (what if it fails?), and the deal breaker - a permanent fixed screen that is highly reflective and shows more contrast than the image is. The iMac to me is highly suspect in its design because it seems so thin that it probably has higher eventual problems because of cooling issues within a small space. They are making this stuff too thin, trying to be sexy, at the expense of durability - just my hunch.

In short, I want the more hardware expansion options of a tower and the do-it-yourself component installation aspect. If they will only give you 6 Ram slots - then drop the total hard drive bays down to two, with room for one more expansion card (after you can fit in today's largest available graphic card). Sell that for $1,500 and you'll have value for your dollar. I can then happily choose my own monitor since I hate this glassy reflective direction Apple insists on going.

Others in this forum are heavy hitters and have much more involved requiements - I'm just a lower tier artist trying to run a simple business operation and lightly using pro graphic programs. I'm offering another perspective from a person that feels Apple is not catering to a certain segment of its professional market.

Mike

 

[VirtualRain]

One could always build or buy a cheaper computer than a Mac but only recently can one build or buy a cheaper computer that will run the latest Mac OS, since Apple's switch to commodity parts. The comparison of what Apple provides hardware-wise vs. its competition is much more apparent, and there is less justification for the "Apple tax" given that Apple is essentially building the same hardware platform as other PC vendors.

And the circle is complete... back to post #312. <sigh>

In short, I want the more hardware expansion options of a tower and the do-it-yourself component installation aspect. If they will only give you 4 Ram slots - then drop the total hard drive bays down to two, with room for one more expansion card (after you can fit in today's largest available graphic card). Sell that for $1,500 and you'll have value for your dollar. I can then happily choose my own monitor since I hate this glassy reflective direction Apple insists on going.

Mike

I see... but do you think most people would trade 2 drive bays for another expansion slot? The fact is, (and I asked this once before) what on earth do people do to fill even the 4 PCI slots they have now?

I think from pure specs alone, the entry level Mac Pro quad is the mid-tower you want. It's just $1000 more than you would like to pay. Arguably, it's $1000 more than it should be, but that's Apple. There are some tangible and intangible benefits included in that $1000 premium, and to some it's worth it, and to many (eg. 90%) it's not.

I see the ability to build a system that has both additional features (additional DIMM slots, and even PCIe slots; others too, but can technically be "fixed" by adding cards, such as eSATA) and can out-perform the current MP's (i.e. run 1333MHz memory if the right CPU is used - this limitation in the MP is just firmware).

Apple has never been about maximum flexibility and all the bells and whistles... on the contrary, they are about minimalism and in doing so, make things simpler and presumably more reliable. They do not try to be everything to everyone. That's the domain of the PC.

As for the 1333 RAM speed, you are fond of raising this as a shortcoming but the fact is that tri-channel DDR3-1066 is ample memory bandwidth and significantly more than the 2008 FBDIMM architecture. The difference in real world benchmarks between 1333 and 1066 is almost immeasurable in most applications.

 

[nanofrog]

Apple has never been about maximum flexibility and all the bells and whistles... on the contrary, they are about minimalism and in doing so, make things simpler and presumably more reliable. They do not try to be everything to everyone. That's the domain of the PC.

I'm not expecting them to be everything to everyone (i.e. every bell and whistle that could be included be done), but it seems that say eSATA for example, is desired by their user base, and can be quite useful (especially backups IMO). Video/graphics pros come to mind in this instance (high capacity needs).

Obviously there is the ability to put eSATA cards in the system, but the slots are limited. By including just that one feature on the logic board, they could give the system additional value for a very small cost on their part (which is what I was getting at, sorry if it wasn't clear).

As for the 1333 RAM speed, you are fond of raising this as a shortcoming but the fact is that tri-channel DDR3-1066 is ample memory bandwidth and significantly more than the 2008 FBDIMM architecture. The difference in real world benchmarks between 1333 and 1066 is almost immeasurable in most applications.

For now, it's moot for most in terms of being useful (there's little software that can utilize DDR3 in triple channel mode right now). But the psychological impact is what I'm thinking of for the most part when users are looking to purchase a new system, as they see other vendors do offer it. This is important IMO - it comes down to the idea that the system will last them longer (i.e. comments/posts on "future proofing" when considering a system purchase, no matter if it's a real issue/possiblility or not).

In this case, I do see it becoming a real issue (workstation use) at some point once the software catches up (when is the real question here).

 

[Eidorian]

There are a few features in it BIOS can't do. GUI interface, the ablility to run shell for example (rarely used at best), and you can update the firmware from the internet within the firmware (no need to load an OS). It's also supposed to be VM friendly, but with the current CPU designs, BIOS can utilize the VT/VT-d functionality anyway (and properly).

Ultimately however, BIOS has been able to keep up with existing systems, and there's been no real advantages with EFI over BIOS (see the Criticism section at the bottom of the Wiki page).

Thanks. This is much more interesting. I do remember the MSI EFI demos from ages ago and a few Intel boards did get Beta versions. It never amounted to much after that though.

I must still emphasize "motivation" because the benefits are rather apparent.

 

[nanofrog]

Thanks. This is much more interesting. I do remember the MSI EFI demos from ages ago and a few Intel boards did get Beta versions. It never amounted to much after that though.

I must still emphasize "motivation" because the benefits are rather apparent.

I like the idea of the new features (and there's a few others, such as an included Boot Loader), but if it ever happens, it would be better to skip EFI and go UEFI (minor perhaps, but it's a more unified standard, hence U in front; UEFI home page).

The motivation that would be required = No Choice (for certain), which means the CPU architecture changes to the point where BIOS can no longer be used. Another would be features/benefits that make it highly attractive, which has been proven not to be the case with EFI.

There's also financial implications as well IMO, and has to do with development time and resources (i.e. experience writing such code is low for EFI/UEFI vs. BIOS). So long as BIOS works, they can bang it out faster while using fewer resources, and that matters to the business aspect of any company. The only reason we see EFI in items like RAID cards, is a result of the Itanium systems. Otherwise, there'd only be one offering; Apple's POJ card.

MSI's demonstration was an experiement, and did 2 things. One, is it let them see if there really were changes/features that made switching to it attractive (granted, they didn't test everything possible feature wise, but what they did test wasn't that impressive apparently, and the features not tested were likely considered minor, as there's ways to get the job done already). The second, gave those on the project experience that they can use later when such a switch does happen (I do expect it to happen, but I've no idea when). It is pretty though.

 

[Eric S.]

And the circle is complete... back to post #312. <sigh>

Post 312 is pretty meaningless. I could spend a few hundred dollars and upgrade all of those components to the level of an Apple system and not come anywhere close to paying the "Apple tax."

Now if you really want a product differentiator, it's Apple support and service. But even those don't justify the cost difference.

 

[nanofrog]

Now if you really want a product differentiator, it's Apple support and service. But even those don't justify the cost difference.

The onsite aspect is an issue, as the PC side doesn't have distance limitations (keep in mind, I'm refering to proper Worstations and Servers, not the consumer models).

As per phone support, I wasn't impressed with Apple (they didn't have a clue), but my questions were very specific and detailed. For common problems, it may be totally different.

Consumer model support on the PC side tends to be poor, and the support calls are usually routed overseas, where language barriers can be a real problem.

So I tend to see it as a matter of perspective (enterprise vs. consumer primarily).

 

[TennisandMusic]

Virtual Rain, you have written a lot so I won't quote it all but I think you should consider your position. It has basically come down to needing to make excuses for Apple's behavior. Suggesting 8GB is "enough" is just...well it's not good. You're asking people to pay a premium on these gimped machines, then making assumptions about their work. If 8GB is enough, why not just buy an iMac? Plus you can build a workstation in a mid tower sized box. The size of the case doesn't indicate how much power is inside necessarily.

I guess I just don't get it. It's clear Apple really doesn't care about this area. It's incredibly clear. There is no need to defend them, if a user is happy with what they offer, great. It is ok for people to see the gaping holes in the lineup though, or the poor value, or gimped machines etc etc.

Again, any time you have to come up with some reason why Apple's deficiencies are in fact ok, I would ask "why do I need to do this?" The bottom line is that Apple really isn't doing that great of a job for pro users. The PC world is much more capable at the moment, in just about every way.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Post 312 is pretty meaningless. I could spend a few hundred dollars and upgrade all of those components to the level of an Apple system and not come anywhere close to paying the "Apple tax."

Now if you really want a product differentiator, it's Apple support and service. But even those don't justify the cost difference.

The only thing for me is that I have needed Apple support on almost every machine I've bought. Even when it's something that would be easy to fix in the PC world, like broken hard drives. If you have an iMac you pretty much have to take it in.

Think about it...why is Applecare considered so necessary?

By contrast I've never needed PC support on anything I've owned personally. Ever. So yeah Apple support is great in my experience but it sorta comes down to "Apple support is great! I know because I need to use it on almost all of my machines!"

 

[VirtualRain]

Virtual Rain, you have written a lot so I won't quote it all but I think you should consider your position. It has basically come down to needing to make excuses for Apple's behavior. Suggesting 8GB is "enough" is just...well it's not good. You're asking people to pay a premium on these gimped machines, then making assumptions about their work. If 8GB is enough, why not just buy an iMac? Plus you can build a workstation in a mid tower sized box. The size of the case doesn't indicate how much power is inside necessarily.

I guess I just don't get it. It's clear Apple really doesn't care about this area. It's incredibly clear. There is no need to defend them, if a user is happy with what they offer, great. It is ok for people to see the gaping holes in the lineup though, or the poor value, or gimped machines etc etc.

Again, any time you have to come up with some reason why Apple's deficiencies are in fact ok, I would ask "why do I need to do this?" The bottom line is that Apple really isn't doing that great of a job for pro users. The PC world is much more capable at the moment, in just about every way.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. I see only a few professional workloads where the Mac Pro is not a very capable performer. I see a product that is more refined than most, backed by solid support, with a very clean user experience, that has some very unique design features. I guess I'm in the minority in this thread, perhaps even this forum, but after working on a very nicely equipped Windows platform every day I'm delighted to get home to my Mac Pro. If I am ever fortunate enough to start my own business one day, it will definitely be founded on the back of Mac computers.

 

[Lava Lamp Freak]

The only thing for me is that I have needed Apple support on almost every machine I've bought. Even when it's something that would be easy to fix in the PC world, like broken hard drives. If you have an iMac you pretty much have to take it in.

Think about it...why is Applecare considered so necessary?

By contrast I've never needed PC support on anything I've owned personally. Ever. So yeah Apple support is great in my experience but it sorta comes down to "Apple support is great! I know because I need to use it on almost all of my machines!"

I have an iMac and I'm pissed right now because my Superdrive doesn't work. It won't write discs at all and fails at reading sometimes. I only have the one computer right now, and I have to use it every day. So, I can't take it in for service for the time being. My friend had a problem with the video card in his Dell and they sent him a new one in the mail to swap out himself and then send the old one in. They also offered to send a tech to his house to replace it for him if he wanted. I wish Apple would be that customer friendly.

This will be the 3rd time in the last year I've taken an iMac in for service. My last one had to go in once for a failed hard drive and a second time for a noisy fan. It is very annoying.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. I see only a few professional workloads where the Mac Pro is not a very capable performer. I see a product that is more refined than most, backed by solid support, with a very clean user experience, that has some very unique design features. I guess I'm in the minority in this thread, perhaps even this forum, but after working on a very nicely equipped Windows platform every day I'm delighted to get home to my Mac Pro. If I am ever fortunate enough to start my own business one day, it will definitely be founded on the back of Mac computers.

What windows machine do you have that is nicely equipped, and who made it?

Can you please explain what design features you think are unique about the Mac Pro?

Can you also explain what refinements it has that other machines do not?

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

 

[VirtualRain]

At the office I work on a high-end Dell Latitude E6500 laptop. It's a nice machine with all the bells and whitles including eSata, FW, SC card slot, 1920x1200 display, and I run it with another 24" Samsung display.

In order to put what I like about the Mac Pro in context, I use to build my own PC's. My last one was a highly custom water cooled system. It had SLI, dual PSU's and a three loop cooling system. I invested over $6K in that system. If you follow custom PC building at all, you will know that cable management, low noise cooling, and internal aesthetics are paramount to build a reputable rig. Of course it was overclocked to the extreme... the Q6600 was overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.6GHz prime stable for 12 hours. However, it was plauged with issues related to the poor Nvidia chipset, poor Nvidia drivers early in Vista's life, and even instability when gaming in SLI well into Vista's life.

So when I decided to move to the Mac Pro, things that I really appreciated about it where the attractive minimalist design of the exterior, and the beautiful and thoughtful internals that only a PC modder can truly appreciate. Things like cable managment in the Mac Pro are almost non existant because Apple has integrated so much into the main board such as PCIe GPU power traces on the main board, back plane SATA connectors, integrated Wifi and BT. Even small details like the PCIe card retention mechanism are amazing. The CPU tray is a dream and very elegant design. I've also never seen air cooling as quiet and well executed as I have in the Mac Pro. While the fan speeds don't ramp up fast enough for my liking, it's still a very elegant and quiet design.

When it comes to the OS, Windows is perfectly fine and Win 7 is actually reasonbly attractive, but I still find Vista/Win7 to be gawdy "look at me" designs that make the OS the center of attention. OSX is understated, sleek, minimalistic and lets the task take center stage. It's a breath of fresh air. OSX says I'm all about getting work done or letting you do your task. Windows says you need to tweak and customize me and screw around to get anything done.

Now, obviously I don't get the benefit of working on a Mac for my job, but I spend a lot of time every evening on it using Aperture and to a lesser extent Final Cut and it's just a dream to work on.

Apple makes complex things simple. Syncing all my machines and my phone through MobileMe is a killer feature that simply doesn't exist on the Windows side. Automated backups to my TC are just so easy. Buying a new Mac or doing a clean install from a TC backup are just so painless it makes me laugh how onerous of a process this was on Windows.

Anyway, I could go on and on (obviously )... but the fact is that Apple has made my life so much easier and let me focus on being productive and I don't miss all the expansion options and headaches with drivers that came with maintaining a Windows machine at all. Sure you have to assimilate with the borg and do some things the Apple way sometimes (it's futile to resist) but the rewards far outweigh the small sacrifices in my opinion.