Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[nanofrog]

At the office I work on a high-end Dell Latitude E6500 laptop. It's a nice machine with all the bells and whistles 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 plagued 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.

Neither is a good comparison with a workstation though. Definitely not a laptop. PC builds, it will depend on the specifics, and the one you describe screams gaming machine, not workstation. But I'm no gamer, and stick with single graphics cards. Nor am I a fan of nVidia either, especially after seeing it more from the inside - worked for Tech Source Labs, and left just before nVidia bought them out.

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 management in the Mac Pro are almost non existent 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.

MP's definitely have an attractive case, and the internals are clean.

PC workstations I'm familiar with have nice internals (easier to repair than a MP as well), but the externals... well, not so much - too much plastic for my taste, but I base decisions on functionality not appearance (I consider internal layout and repair time as part of the functionality).

Cooling can be decent on PC workstations as well (in instances it wasn't a fan swap would do the trick). Servers, no way they can be mistaken as quiet. They're meant to be in a rack room, and sacrifice quiet for CFM rates to make sure they're cool.

The consumer models are nowhere near what a proper workstation is for cooling, noise, internal design, reliability,..., and I definitely see a distinct differentiation. But as the MP is a workstation, I only consider what's close on the PC side, so I ignore the consumer systems.

When it comes to the OS, Windows is perfectly fine and Win 7 is actually reasonably attractive, but I still find Vista/Win7 to be gaudy "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.

This sounds like personal preference though, not based technical reasons. That's fine (I've no problem with this). Previously however, OS X had an advantage on the technical side as well as UI (more stable). But it's not like say Tiger vs. XP.

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.

I presume your other devices and systems are Apple as well, and the closed system definitely has the advantage here.

Windows, not so much, as it can mean 3rd party software is required, but it is possible to do. But more work is involved in the initial setup, and of course cost of the software.

With Linux, at least the software tends to be free.

 

[VirtualRain]

The reason for all the background was not to try and demonstrate I've got extensive knowledge of other vendor's workstations, but to hopefully show that I can relate to those who extol all the supposed benefits of the PC platform.

I'm well aware of all the benefits of PC's from the limitless expandibility, flexibility, and superior cost effectiveness, but its actually this intimate familiarity with PC's that makes me appreciate the Mac Pro that much more.

Consider that most creative professionals using a Mac Pro probably never even open the side of their case, never-mind appreciate something as simple as SATA backplane connectors or the elegance of main board PCIe power traces. However, I do value these things and realize they enable a more efficient, quieter cooling system (to cite just one example).

If anyone ought to be demanding something like eSata, it should be me. I've got a box full of old hard drives I could connect with my eSata dock. But the fact is, with some thoughtful storage planning, you can do a lot with the 5 bays in a Mac Pro and then if needed, FW800 or even a nice NAS. I find it more rewarding to have a clean setup without crap dangling off a dozen ports at the rear of my case.

Anyway, the Mac Pro design is almost art in my opinion and the expandability is truly great for a Mac... certainly enough to satisfy perhaps 80-90-95% of the pro market's needs. It's expensive, and I wish as much as anyone that it cost less, but I don't find the cost to be prohibitive and I do feel I'm getting value for my money.

 

[nanofrog]

The reason for all the background was not to try and demonstrate I've got extensive knowledge of other vendor's workstations, but to hopefully show that I can relate to those who extol all the supposed benefits of the PC platform.

My posts weren't actually meant to extol the virtues of PC's, but rather that the drastic differences aren't there any longer. If that's what happend, it wasn't the intent. The gap has narrowed or been eliminated in some cases (hardware features), and it changes the value aspect for some in regard to the price increases over the previous Intel based models.

The niceties such as cabling and noise are actually good in the enterprise side (proper cooling is a must, given the usage). It's all over the place for the consumer systems (there are stark contrasts- clean in some, absolute rats nests in others).

Given your PC days, I'd think you'd appreciate the differences. They really are that drastic as a general rule. If you get the chance, take a look at the workstations and servers from HP, Dell, and Sun. You might be rather surprised (they're a far cry from what I've seen for the internals in some consumer systems ).

Consider that most creative professionals using a Mac Pro probably never even open the side of their case, never-mind appreciate something as simple as SATA backplane connectors or the elegance of main board PCIe power traces. However, I do value these things and realize they enable a more efficient, quieter cooling system (to cite just one example).

You find things like backplanes in the enterprise systems.

As per opening the systems, those that seem to really have valid issues would, such as video/graphics (installing upgrades). Others, probably not.

If anyone ought to be demanding something like eSata, it should be me. I've got a box full of old hard drives I could connect with my eSata dock. But the fact is, with some thoughtful storage planning, you can do a lot with the 5 bays in a Mac Pro and then if needed, FW800 or even a nice NAS. I find it more rewarding to have a clean setup without crap dangling off a dozen ports at the rear of my case.

I admit, my views are based on the need for RAID, which means more than 5x HDD's in a set, and multiples may be involved (I've one set of 8x, another of 4x, as well as backup and separate OS disks in a single case - that's not commonplace). Those that burn through capacity would be in the same situation.

But as you indicate, there are solutions. They're just on the pricey side compared to eSATA. It's one of the reasons I like eSATA for a backup solution with RAID (effective, and inexpensive for what it does).

Anyway, the Mac Pro design is almost art in my opinion and the expandability is truly great for a Mac... certainly enough to satisfy perhaps 80-90-95% of the pro market's needs. It's expensive, and I wish as much as anyone that it cost less, but I don't find the cost to be prohibitive and I do feel I'm getting value for my money.

Hard to say about %'s, but you may not be far off. But as it's aimed at pros, I feel the graphics pros are it's main target (particularly the DP models, as the software can utilize them), and things like eSATA is something that would be highly useful to them.

It's all a matter of perspective, but little things like that work in Apple's favor, even if it's purely from a psychological POV (it can still generate a sense of added value and further generate brand loyalty).

 

[TennisandMusic]

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.

Hmm...well I'll tell you there are plenty of great all aluminum, or all steel PC cases. The interior of the Mac Pro case isn't very good either. So, I'd say the "minimalist" design of the case is a complete wash, because you have your choice of several on the PC side.

Mobile Me is ok. I have an account. The syncing hasn't always worked properly for me, but honestly, is it really that hard to set up your email on different machines? I mean really? I agree, it's nice, but MS has this stuff coming with Windows Live I believe, and it's free. What has Apple done with Mobile Me in the last two years? Pretty much nothing aside from finding your lost iPhone.

Can you please explain why Win 7 is "gaudy" and "look at me" compared to OSX? The taskbar and dock are fairly similar, with the taskbar having more functionality and capability, and there is no menu bar across the top of the screen in Windows. In a way this makes Windows more "minimalistic" than OSX, because you have less cluttering up the screen. Right now at the screen I'm looking at I have no less than 10 icons running across the top right of my menu bar. Win7 pretty much takes these same items, and puts them all in a single little arrow choice that you never have to look at unless you want too. The taskbar is literally the start button, your apps, and a clock with the minimized menu container for lack of a better way of putting it. So there less on screen than OSX. Seems pretty out of the way to me.

I work quite a bit, across both platforms, and I'd have to say that Windows feels far more productive than OSX. I am not the only one. Look at this article and see what he estimates his productivity gains over OSX are.

Productivity of OSX and Windows

I pretty much agree with his assessment. I was bringing my macbook pro to work for awhile and using that hooked up to my monitor over the supplied windows desktop. I actually just stopped this month after about six months of doing this because I realized my work was going much slower than it should. I went back to my XP desktop and started kicking butt again. This is simply because Windows is built to work. Try file management in explorer vs. finder. Tell me which one is faster and easier to navigate quickly. Tasks that take 20 seconds in one can take 2 minutes in the other. Try to group items by type with folders at the top (without hacking) in both...which works? Try cutting and pasting...which works? Which one navigates instantly, which one takes a few seconds to refresh in between clicks? Etc.

So we have established that Windows has less on screen than OSX, it has (IMO) objectively better file management...so then what are we left with? Apps. Apps are arbitrary across both platforms for me. Installing and uninstalling, and use is the same across both for me. I use AppCleaner on OSX, and RevoUninstaller on Windows. No big deal at all, though I do acknowledge that by default OSX "looks" cleaner. It's not really when you get down to it though. So...look at the menus. OSX has a nice looking menu bar, but it harkens back to 1984 when you could only run one app at a time. Let's say you have three apps open and on your screen at once. You want to go into the preferences of each. You have to...click...on..each...window...then go to the top menu bar edit the settings. This is extremely slow and kludgy. By contrast, in Windows, you can see the menus for each at a glance, and instantly. As Steve might say, you go to each one and "boom" there it is. No need to be traveling back and forth all across your screen. It's menu system would be like if you had every control for your house appliances in your living room and not on the appliances themselves. Want to get some water boiling and wash some clothes? Go to the stove. Put water on pot. Go to living room and turn on the stove. Now go to your laundry room and load everything up. Go back to your living room and start the laundry. Want to check the stove? Gotta go back to the stove and touch it. THEN you can return to the living room to check on it. OSX truly is absurd in that regard. It's also a highly unintuitive way to do things.

Windows is more efficient. Period.

I will give OSX that it's nicer to look at. Yeah the dock is centered as opposed to the left justification of the taskbar. It's nicer for people who can be OCD like myself. Little details with bother me on both platforms, and I use my computers many many hours of most days. I know both platforms inside and out and have no emotional attachment to either.

And herein lies the crux of things. Most arguments I see in favor of OSX rely on emotional ones. Or outright lies perpetuated by Apple marketing. I just don't see how people can say OSX is elegant and beautiful and fast, while Windows is an ugly mess. They really aren't ALL that different. But in the key areas that they are, I just don't see how OSX can objectively win. Clearly OSX is more attractive but...that's about it.

I use OSX because I have too pretty much. I write iPhone software, and will probably be doing iPad as well. If I wasn't doing this I wouldn't "need" OSX. Would I still use it? Not really sure, I do like the attractiveness of it all, but honestly Windows is just a better platform for being productive in just about any field you can name. But I am drawn to the fact that OSX looks more "nice."

I can only assume (and this is an assumption for sure), that there are many many people out there who try to justify their love of Apple products because of the fact they are drawn to the looks, and also because they need to justify paying way way more for what they get. Usually people who are vocal about their purchases truly are trying to justify what they have purchased.

And 6k on a custom rig is insane. What did you spend that money on? I could do something absolutely nuts for 3k. I can't even imagine it. I've been doing personal builds for ten years, and I could put together a machine better than a mac pro in an hour for much less money. Also, have fun when your Time Capsule dies (look at store.apple.com) or when your time machine backup decides to just stop working entirely (has happened to me, and is a rampant problem). Time machine is crap crap software. Use something real if you want to be safe. And backups are incredibly easy to do on Windows as well. I just don't see the issue.

I have yet to really see any REAL solid reasons for choosing OSX over Windows, but I can see plenty for vice versa, and this is despsite the fact that I am an OSX user! But as I've said, I look at things based on actual usage and not emotional reasons.

Actually this whole thing reminds me of an article that had this picture on it. It seems to be frighteningly accurate (not saying it reminds me of you at all, just the topic in general) from what I've seen both on this board and in the real world.

Profile of a "mac fanboy"

I still have yet to see a good solid reason to spend so much more money on OSX machines unless it's one of "because I have too." And there is little Apple is doing to convince me to do so. They truly don't seem to care.

 

[TennisandMusic]

By the way, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't be happy with your Mac stuff. Not at all. I like OSX in general. Like I said, it's what I use.

But really, this isn't a war. One platform doesn't need to "lose" while the other side "wins." They co-exist. It just seems to me like Windows does a much better overall job of being more things to more people, and doing it on terrific hardware and in a highly efficient way. I'll be curious to see what they are doing in the next version since MS claims that it's going to revolutionize things.

 

[VirtualRain]

I feel like this discussion has gotten way of course in analyzing my personal preferences and their merit instead of trying to stay focused on whether the Mac Pro is a suitable workstation for professionals or not.

My original proposition a few pages back, that sparked this most recent debate, was that the Mac Pro is perfectly adequate for professional workloads while many were "whining" that it was overpriced and lacked essential features (eSata, FW400, GPU support, etc.) which I deemed petty, easily worked around, or non-issues to the average pro user.

I'm not sure anyone's given me some solid evidence that a Mac Pro is not up to the task demanded of it by most creative professionals... or that the price is so out of whack that it's cost prohibitive to someone who has a sizeable investment in OSX software that it would prevent them from upgrading and force them to switch over to a PC. In fact, I pointed out that a user from 2006 who spent $3K on a machine would only have to spend $3300 this year for double the cores and triple the RAM. The only response I got to that was the same old crap... "well I could build a much more capable PC for less" and on it went. Of course you can. But the guy who could have built a PC for less in 2006 is probably not going to do it in 2009 either... for the same reasons.

Another fact that's often overlooked is the resale value. People are so use to massive PC depreciation that they don't sell their old PC's, they repurpose them for lesser tasks or give them to family members. A stark difference in owning a Mac Pro is that it maintains it's value extremely well. That 2006 machine I was talking about is being sold on Ebay and CL these days for $1K-$1.5K. Not bad at all considering a 2006 PC would be junk now.

While a pro might want to switch to Windows, there's no show-stopper issue with the 2009 Mac Pro that would force a switch. The Mac Pro is a very capable machine and while it is expensive, there are tangible and intangible benefits that many see value in... Not everyone, but some, or at least one .

 

[snouter]

To me, this round of updates (MacBook Pro and MacPro) are the most important from Apple in a LONG time.

I'm looking for signs that Apple is in touch with my needs.

First Mac used was a IIe. First one used semi-professionally was a Centris or Quadra that ran at 25MHz. First one I bought was a 7100/66. Upgraded to a 7100/80, lol. Then a 9500/132. Upgraded that with a 180MHz dual 604e, then a 400MHz G3. Then bought a G4/450. Then rode herd on a dual 800MHz G4. Then rocked a dual 2GHz G5. Then got out of Macs while they transitioned to Intel. Then got back into Macs with an Intel Macbook Pro and then another Macbook Pro. Never really replaced my dual G5 with another Apple product.

I look at the line up today, and nothing is doing for me.

I've been using a homebuilt $1250 i7 920 desktop overclocked to 3.6GHz with 12GB and an HD4890 video card. Mac has NOTHING on that right now. Honestly, I really like the computer and Windows 7. No issues. Solid productivity. I use CS4 Production Premium. I'd use After Effects regardless, and Final Cut Pro needs a rewrite, like yesterday. So there is no Pro App advantage for me. I don't use any of the audio apps, so, I don't know what's up with Logic or whatever.

A single 2.66GHz Xeon Mac Pro with a video card upgrade and 12GB of ram, oh wait, it only has 4 ram slots... anyhow, $3000.

I don't even feel bad. It's not like Apple is hurting or is the underdog anymore. It's like they have left me for iPod iPhone iPad. If that's what they are now, then, are they really a company building workstations for Pros?

What kind of company keeps everything such a secret that I can't plan my hardware upgrades in a reasonable manner? Lets pro apps like Final Cut Pro and in particular that trash they call Compressor to languish. Abandons the $1000 to $2000 segment for headless desktops?

I'm looking for a sign Apple. I'm not buying your stupid iMacs and I'm not paying the price of a used car for a "nice" computer that is not nearly as workstation as people try to make it out to be.

As Allen Iverson would say, "Apple is disrespecting me, when I've given my heart and soul to this team. For them to dis me like this, it's not right. I don't know if I can suit up and play for this team ever again."

jus' sayin'

 

[Infrared]

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.

Would just like to mention, (U)EFI* adoption hasn't been limited
to just Itanium and the MSI board. For example, it's used in some
Sony laptops:

http://feature-enable.blogspot.com/2009/07/enable-vt-on-insydeh2o-based-sony-vaio.html

In fact, some machines that appear to be running a traditional BIOS
are really running an emulated BIOS over (U)EFI. And I once heard
that all recent Intel boards use (U)EFI, but I don't know if that's true
or not.

* Just to be on the safe side. I'm not always sure if it's EFI or UEFI.

The taskbar and dock are fairly similar, with the taskbar having more functionality and capability, and there is no menu bar across the top of the screen in Windows. In a way this makes Windows more "minimalistic" than OSX, because you have less cluttering up the screen.

Well, it's one menu bar at the top (OS X) vs potentially one for every
window (Windows).

So we have established that Windows has less on screen than OSX, it has (IMO) objectively better file management...

Can it be "IMO" (O = Opinion) and "objectively" at the same time? Or are we
talking at the meta-level?

 

[TheStrudel]

The taskbar and dock are fairly similar, with the taskbar having more functionality and capability...

It doesn't; the dock can (now) do everything the taskbar does and is more flexible in some ways. I don't know about Win7, but in XP (my company is rolling out 7 this summer, and it seems like we're fairly quick to do so) you can't drag things to applications in the dock, etc. My dock holds a ton of crap and disappears when I don't need to interact with it.

...and there is no menu bar across the top of the screen in Windows. In a way this makes Windows more "minimalistic" than OSX, because you have less cluttering up the screen. Right now at the screen I'm looking at I have no less than 10 icons running across the top right of my menu bar. Win7 pretty much takes these same items, and puts them all in a single little arrow choice that you never have to look at unless you want too. The taskbar is literally the start button, your apps, and a clock with the minimized menu container for lack of a better way of putting it. So there less on screen than OSX. Seems pretty out of the way to me.

This is a fundamental design issue. Windows uses a (to me) stupid argument for computers and applications, that the document is the window and the whole application, while  and OS X have always said, the application is the application, not the window and all the controls are always in the same place. It makes sense, when you think about it. If you've got too many menu items, it's your configuration. You have just as many in Windows, they just hang out of the stupid window instead of the menu bar. And clicking that X closes everything out (but this behavior is inconsistent! In Excel, we have an X for the document and an X for the application, but clicking the X in the upper right of a maximized window doesn't close out the application, just that one document.). I'll agree that minimize/maximize are more dead easy, but they don't align really well with the flexibility we should expect of a computer.

Try cutting and pasting...which works? Which one navigates instantly, which one takes a few seconds to refresh in between clicks? Etc.

What? Everything is instantaneous on my (granted, it's faster) machine. Copy-paste works perfectly well. If you're talking about cut and paste in the desktop environment as a way of moving files, I've always felt that that's the most ham-handed way to approach a file system. Seems way too easy to get user errors. And what's the deal with needing to hit refresh to see changes to a folder after I've copied stuff to it?

So we have established that Windows has less on screen than OSX, it has (IMO) objectively better file management...

Yeah, as someone else pointed out, as soon as you use the word "opinion," Objective becomes Subjective. Subordinate to your opinion, of course.


No offense, but I think many of your arguments demonstrates a lack of understanding of OS X. A lot of people are convinced Windows paradigms are the right ones.

Here's a thought we can all get behind. MacOS Classic and early Windows were both designed off of the pioneering work on the 1984 Macintosh. That was a great, industry re-defining machine, and I don't mean to belittle the work. But the fact remains that both Windows and Mac OS X are built off of work that was started 25 years ago. I refuse to believe that the Macintosh software team of 1984 had the last, best word on operating system paradigms and that what they came up is forever the best way of doing things. This is more a statement on how broken the computer software (specifically system software) industry is, but why on earth is everything still based off of 1984? Why don't we have more better options? Why are we limited to control fanaticism (), a copy of  with inferior design decisions (Windows), and computer socialist collectives that are designed for programmers and not real people (Linux)?

 

[CCK]

I feel like this discussion has gotten way of course .

With all due respect, I think you just keep missing the point.

If a mac user needs any expandability or decent connections to HD's the choice is...

17" MBP $2500 +
MP $2500 +

One choice, take it or leave it. To have to pay $2500 just to have HD accessibly is a bit extreme. Hence forces a lot of people into machines they don't need, hence the "whiners".

Didn't used to be like this.

I'll get a MP in the next month or 2, and when I do, I'll be very happy with it.
I just won't support like I did in the past, like you do now because I think a minimum purchase of $2500 just for the increasing need for connectivity is manipulative & greedy at best.

And this is not even taking into account other issues brought up here.

I've never owned a PC, but am thinking of getting one for my daughter for college even though she'll protest (she's hooked by their commercials/image)

If this one fact eludes you, Further discussion on the matter is futile.

 

[nanofrog]

Would just like to mention, (U)EFI* adoption hasn't been limited
to just Itanium and the MSI board. For example, it's used in some
Sony laptops:

http://feature-enable.blogspot.com/2009/07/enable-vt-on-insydeh2o-based-sony-vaio.html

I wasn't thinking in terms of laptops or desktops specifically, just in general.

To see others beginning to use it though.

In fact, some machines that appear to be running a traditional BIOS
are really running an emulated BIOS over (U)EFI. And I once heard
that all recent Intel boards use (U)EFI, but I don't know if that's true
or not.

Intel's Server boards actually contain both. (Look here). From what information I can locate, Intel is the only board maker that does it this way. But of course they did invent EFI, and want to make sure BIOS works (allows to skip emulation I guess, to avoid any issues).

I've not seen any other board maker save MSI's experiment. I'm glad you located the link on Sony, as there's a few Desktop systems listed in the article as well.

If you or anyone else spots any others, I'd appreciate a link if possible.

 

[VirtualRain]

With all due respect, I think you just keep missing the point.

If a mac user needs any expandability or decent connections to HD's the choice is...

17" MBP $2500 +
MP $2500 +

One choice, take it or leave it. To have to pay $2500 just to have HD accessibly is a bit extreme. Hence forces a lot of people into machines they don't need, hence the "whiners".

Didn't used to be like this.

I'll get a MP in the next month or 2, and when I do, I'll be very happy with it.
I just won't support like I did in the past, like you do now because I think a minimum purchase of $2500 just for the increasing need for connectivity is manipulative & greedy at best.

And this is not even taking into account other issues brought up here.

I've never owned a PC, but am thinking of getting one for my daughter for college even though she'll protest (she's hooked by their commercials/image)

If this one fact eludes you, Further discussion on the matter is futile.

What do you mean by that?

The Mac Pro has always been an expensive computer and the only one that could be easily upgraded/expanded. 2009 more so than 2008 but even in 2008 there was a premium over comparable PC's. Even in 2006 a modestly equipped Mac Pro cost $3K.

I'm not debating that the Mac Pro is not expensive. All I'm saying is that I see the value in the added expense. Many here do not (although you do) and from some of the posts a few pages back, it seemed like petty stuff that was contributing to the discontent.

 

[Topper]

I'm not debating that the Mac Pro is not expensive. All I'm saying is that I see the value in the added expense.

And each Mac Pro gets a little more expensive.
As long as the Mac Pro keeps improving, I'll pay the extra money.
I wish more applications would make use of the Mac Pro's power though. In time, huh?

 

[Nostromo]

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!"

Same here. Luckily, all the repairs have been during the warranty year.

Every Mac I had so far was three times at the shop for serious problems like a bad screen or a dysfunctional "Super"Drive.

 

[Jasonscott71]

Same here. Luckily, all the repairs have been during the warranty year.

Every Mac I had so far was three times at the shop for serious problems like a bad screen or a dysfunctional "Super"Drive.

My circa 2002 iMac G4 never went in for repair, but the Super Drive died shortly after my AppleCare wen kaput. My Feb '08 MacBook Pro had to have the keyboard and surrounding "top" encasing (including the trackpad and clicker) totally replaced. Would have been an $800 repair I think.

 

[CCK]

What do you mean by that?

The Mac Pro has always been an expensive computer and the only one that could be easily upgraded/expanded. 2009 more so than 2008 but even in 2008 there was a premium over comparable PC's. Even in 2006 a modestly equipped Mac Pro cost $3K.

I'm not debating that the Mac Pro is not expensive. All I'm saying is that I see the value in the added expense. Many here do not (although you do) and from some of the posts a few pages back, it seemed like petty stuff that was contributing to the discontent.

My emac had 2 FW 400 ports (pre FW800)
Our 06 & 07 MBP had FW 400, 800 + an express card slot, now just 1 FW 800
08 imacs had FW 400 + 800, now just 1 FW 800 (should have eSATA IMO)

so now my only real choice is a MP. Fine, it's actually the comp I want, but I don't need much, mostly better render speed HD connectivity and memory.

$2500 gets me 4 ram slots, which means that I have to trash the 3 Gbs of ram before I even turn it on and add 3x2gb (the 4 Gb are a little cost prohibitive after the $2500 investment). So now I have a new powerful comp with 7 Gb ram, (a little lame on the ram IMO for such a machine). In the future if I want to up the ram, I've got to trash that $200 + investment.

Okay, so I want 8 ram slots, that's another $700, but wait, it's a 2,26 8 core, the problem now is that I don't use all those cores, so I guess I'll have to get the 2.66 8 core to get the ram options I need, and the same speed of the base model (if I'm not mistaken) tack on another $1000.

Oh yeah, they used to give you the adapter for the second display also, so add another $100.

I'd even be happy with just 6 ram slots in the base model (think I remember someone saying that made more sense than 4 anyway?), That would mean I could start with 9 Gb ram and have the ability to increase it without having to trash the 2 Gb rams that I bought.

Personally I love my macs, their dependability, stability and the OS. What I don't like is the obvious gouging they practice on their loyal customers because they know, A - we do not (for the most part) want to switch to PC's and B - because we are heavily invested in software and time/experience.

My work has been on national TV (PBS) but PBS doesn't pay anything, yet I still have to pay for packaging for broadcast, close captioning, and a million $ errors and omissions policy. Funding/grants/sponsors are extremely difficult/competitive and much of that $ has dried up. I do some pro bono work for org's that I believe in and small jobs for local dance schools that can't afford high $ gigs. The bottom line is that value/longevity is important to me.

I do not want or expect to give me a high end machine at cost. I don't mind handing over a good chunk of cash to , but I do feel that their options/value has declined in the last 2 years and don't feel like they respect their professional base like they use to, but rather take advantage of them. I feel that this points to a decline in the creative user image that they were founded on. I also feel that their success with the "i" products has lead to this decline rather than enhance it, Thus the growing % of disgruntled long time user.

Oh I also find that most people thinking that the 08 is a better value rather than a cheeper outdated comp that will suit their needs is indicative of this issue, along with their denial of the audio issue of the 09s mimicking the Toyota fiasco/response.

 

[Topper]

$2500 gets me 4 ram slots, which means that I have to trash the 3 Gbs of ram before I even turn it on and add 3x2gb (the 4 Gb are a little cost prohibitive after the $2500 investment). So now I have a new powerful comp with 7 Gb ram, (a little lame on the ram IMO for such a machine). In the future if I want to up the ram, I've got to trash that $200 + investment.

Okay, so I want 8 ram slots, that's another $700, but wait, it's a 2,26 8 core, the problem now is that I don't use all those cores, so I guess I'll have to get the 2.66 8 core to get the ram options I need, and the same speed of the base model (if I'm not mistaken) tack on another $1000.

I'm sure you know this but you can put up to 32GB of memory in those 4 memory slots.
Why do you need 8 memory slots?
Bite the bullet and get the amount of memory that you need right away and save $1000 by not having to buy the 8 memory slot model.
With 4 memory slots you can buy 8GB of memory for $266.
You can buy 16GB of memory for $613.
You can buy 32GB of memory for $1800.

 

[nanofrog]

I'm sure you know this but you can put up to 32GB of memory in those 4 memory slots

CCK indicated the 4GB sticks were out of budget, so the 8GB would certainly be.

The desire is to be able to:
1. Retain triple channel mode
2. Use 2GB sticks due to cost, so that's the desire for 8 DIMM slots (12GB at the lowest cost while retaining a triple channel configuration).

This seems to be the basis for the complaint with the DIMM count in the current Quads.

 

[CCK]

I'm sure you know this but you can put up to 32GB of memory in those 4 memory slots.
Why do you need 8 memory slots?
Bite the bullet and get the amount of memory that you need right away and save $1000 by not having to buy the 8 memory slot model.
With 4 memory slots you can buy 8GB of memory for $266.
You can buy 16GB of memory for $613.
You can buy 32GB of memory for $1800.

I am certainly aware of this and it is an option I've considered. Where the problem lies is in the finances/need now to what they might be in the future.

If I pay the $600 for 16 Gbs now and find in a year or 2 that I'd like more, I'd have the trash the existing ram to upgrade. Especially considering that the 8 Gb ram will most likely come down in price over the next couple of years if/when I should need it. Or even when I have the extra cash to invest.

This is how it worked with my G5. Got a couple of extra Gbs right away and then filled it up as I got the extra $ and subsequently the cost of the ram dropped considerably in that time frame also.

There is also the added psychological benefit of knowing that you have room to expand. Maybe I wouldn't need more that 16 Gbs, but I do find that what works now is only what works now. Being locked into a ram configuration from day one (especially spending half the price of the comp to max it out from day one).

Truthfully, 7 Gbs might be enough for me right now, if it is, then why spend $600, if it isn't then the $200 investment is a waste. Even 2 more ram slots would make a considerable difference in this regard. And isn't it true that the 4th slot isn't utilized very efficiently because of the 3 channel configuration???

 

[Topper]

CCK indicated the 4GB sticks were out of budget, so the 8GB would certainly be.

The desire is to be able to:
1. Retain triple channel mode
2. Use 2GB sticks due to cost, so that's the desire for 8 DIMM slots (12GB at the lowest cost while retaining a triple channel configuration).

This seems to be the basis for the complaint with the DIMM count in the current Quads.

Oh, the infamous triple channel mode.
I'll have to keep that in mind when I get a new Mac Pro.
Thanks.

 

[nanofrog]

Truthfully, 7 Gbs might be enough for me right now, if it is, then why spend $600, if it isn't then the $200 investment is a waste. Even 2 more ram slots would make a considerable difference in this regard. And isn't it true that the 4th slot isn't utilized very efficiently because of the 3 channel configuration???

When you indicated pulling the OEM RAM, you gave me the impression you wanted triple channel.

Oh, the infamous triple channel mode.
I'll have to keep that in mind when I get a new Mac Pro.
Thanks.

Triple channel isn't that important in most cases right now, as the software can't utilize it. Some can, but it's not common, and it's not what users of MP's seem to be using (i.e. scientific simulations, such as climate, ...). In the future, yes, but the software has to catch up which will take time.

At a minimum, it gives a psychological boost, as users feel they'll be covered when the software does manage to catch up. The real quesion is when, as we all may be on newer machines by then.

 

[CCK]

Another thing I have to consider is that i'd like to upgrade my old audio interface to an Apogee one or a duet, and it seems like there are issues with what used to be a seamless integration of those units with the audio update.

This is not only another issue as how to deal with my budget, but also if I'd be better off with an 08 (which if I'm going to invest in a comp, I'd rather get the latest update) or if it'll (audio update) be fixed in the 10 and if it isn't, will they just deny it for as long as possible???

Once again I don't mind spending the $, it's just my first time buying a mac that I'm not real excited about the options.

Hopefully the will change with the next release and I feel a lot of people feel the same.

 

[CCK]

When you indicated pulling the OEM RAM, you gave me the impression you wanted triple channel.


Triple channel isn't that important in most cases right now, as the software can't utilize it. Some can, but it's not common, and it's not what users of MP's seem to be using (i.e. scientific simulations, such as climate, ...). In the future, yes, but the software has to catch up which will take time.

So does that mean that I can put 1 - 4 Gb ram in the open slot and have good access to those 7 total Gb's? I'm confused because OWC says all should be 4 Gb, though some have stated that it could be different variations????

 

[afrowq]

I just want a freakin' machine that will run Final Cut that I can put a couple extra harddrives into and not spend an arm and a leg. Outta luck. I'll probably switch to Avid and build my own PC

 

[OllyW]

I just want a freakin' machine that will run Final Cut that I can put a couple extra harddrives into and not spend an arm and a leg. Outta luck. I'll probably switch to Avid and build my own PC

Won't the cost of moving to Avid minimise the savings you will make on hardware?