I suggest following Avid's recommend hardware specs and not just building something willy-nilly.
Lethal
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Apple still serious about the professional market?
- Thread starter Onigiri
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lethal
Let's see, with a big fat orb at the bottom right on the screen that lights up when you hover on it as for saying "Click me, Click me!" Or maybe those gigantic, oversized minimize, restore and close buttons on that THICK, THICK title bar? There's WAY too much space wasted just on the title bar! It looks to me like Microsoft wanted to say "See Apple, we can do eye candy too" but completely missing the point. Because in the end unless you use your PC very little, you're gonna turn off all that eye candy once you realize how noticeable the performance improvement is when you remove all the visual effects and use the classic theme. So in the end there's no point in Aero in the first place.
I'm sorry but Microsoft's new "Superbar" is a pretty silly implementation. They tried to shift from Windows' Document-based workflow to OS X's application-based workflow, and they did was end up with a bad half-done hybrid. How can you work with an application-based workflow when you don't even have decent tools to work with it, such as Expose? I'm not even going to talk about the old taskbar.
Now why don't you try this. How about you try to auto hide your taskbar? Now try to look at the time...oh wait, you can't! And what about all the icons down there? Nope, you can't. This is a major flaw. The notification are is a NOTIFICATION area, and putting notification at the bottom right, away from the attention goes completely against its purpose.
Mac OS X is no less productive than Windows, actually, considering the kinds of workflows they follow, OS X is naturally bound to being more productive when multitasking. In any case, here's some web devs talking about why they think that Macs are more productive
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10628477
This again clearly shows that you're used to the document-based workflow, which is why you're more proficient with Windows. Otherwise it's ridiculous, working with lots of apps at the same time every day, Expose is an absolute power tool, and the only thing that Windows has is the Application-switcher, which in comparison is really weak.
I see no differences in file managing between the two systems.
Eeehhh...both?
Windows:
a)Select file
b)CTRL X
c)Select Destination
d)CTRL V
Mac:
a)Select File
b)Select Destination
c)CMD+Drag from File to Destination
Both. Both. Both.
What you're saying is silly. There is very little difference between Finder and Explorer. Actually, I've had far more "Explorer.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close" or "Explorer has stopped responding" than I ever had Finder crashes. I've had to manually restart Explorer many, many more times than I've ever had to restart Finder (seldom).
Except that those apps in Windows each inject a little code into the registry, and little by little, uninstalled or not, slow down your whole system. Thing that simply doesn't happen with OS X.
Maybe you are forgetting that you have tools that let you switch between apps very quickly?
And so let some apps have some very thing menu bars, other occupy a HUGE amount of space (like the "Ribbon") etc.? Sorry, but inconsistency does not go well with the Apple world.
What you are saying is absurd. Using your analogy, you would still have tiny teleportation mirrors where you can put your hand and quickly touch the stove or whatever.
This is pure ********. Period.
Yes, we Mac users tend to be more tied emotionally to our machines and to our computing experience, but besides more fanboyism that also gives us more possibility to compare the two OSs. As someone who uses his computer everyday, I see a HUGE difference between the two OSs, and no, looks is not everything.
I'm sorry, but in any kind of field which includes creativity or graphics, I'd give OS X the edge. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Windows has never really been more productive in anything, it's either been more convenient economically or it's got some exclusive software.
That is utterly ludicrous. I have paid and would pay the same for a PC as I do with a Mac, because I want high quality machines-even if they're PCs. So this "trying to justify the purchase" argument is very improbable. If that was the case, I'd be assuming that you PC fanboys defend PCs just because you can't afford or don't want to try getting a Mac, because you've already decided that you don't like it.
I doubt that you'll be able to build a professional workstation all by yourself, a home made tower is more probable. And in the end it'll still run Windows, which I don't think uses the hardware resources the way it should.
All hard drives die. And Time Machines are no more prone to dying than most of the external drives. Time Machine is a great piece of software, which has always worked very well for me. The only time I didn't use it I regretted it, because I almost lost some of my data. And I don't really think that the Windows backup software is comparable to Time Machine, I by much prefer TM's interface and functionality.
And it's the reverse situation for me. I can't find a single valid reason why I would want to use Windows over OS X, as for me it's inferior in many, many fields.
And I still have yet to see a good solid reason to buy a computer which runs Windows, considering how much problems it always gives me, how much time I waste because of it and how much I hate using it. If paying more means getting more, then I'm more than happy to do it, and until now that has been the case with Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
I feel your pain.
That's why I want to get the most out of this purchase so that I'll be done with this for 5? years.
Originally Posted by 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
I feel your pain.
That's why I want to get the most out of this purchase so that I'll be done with this for 5? years.
MacPro's are gonna be dead in a few years. Whether it is done 'on purpose' or indirectly (by neglecting updates, like they currently do). I know of many pros, who simply go the hackintosh route, not because of price but because of performance.
The hackintosh scene is improving monthly...
The thing that gets me is that when Apple moved to x86 many thought the dawn of cheap(er) Macs, and faster updates were coming.
We (I) was wrong. The Apple update and pricing schedule is still the same.
Apple sells phones and notebooks. Steve said so. Sucks to be us.
/end thread.
The hackintosh scene is improving monthly...
The thing that gets me is that when Apple moved to x86 many thought the dawn of cheap(er) Macs, and faster updates were coming.
We (I) was wrong. The Apple update and pricing schedule is still the same.
Apple sells phones and notebooks. Steve said so. Sucks to be us.
/end thread.
Not a good idea to buy such old equipment.
Apple needs to get its pricing straight. I'm OK with paying more for a Mac Pro than for an equally equipped PC as for the hasslefree operation. But not that much more.
I'd say, 20% Apple Tax is enough.
You can't mix the different versions of DDR3 (non ECC, UDIMM, or RDIMM). It has to remain consistent.
The OEM is UDIMM, but it gets a bit more complicated when mixing; you can mix 1GB with 2GB sticks, but not the 4GB sticks, as those have thermal sensors (and all of them have to have it, hence the mention when using 4GB UDIMM that they must all be 4GB UDIMM's).
What this means, is you can get a 6GB kit (3x 2GB sticks), and use one of the OEM 1GB sticks to get 7GB total (fill all 4x DIMM sockets). It won't run triple channel, but that's not going to be an issue given your software usage.
The capacity increase is worth filling that extra slot IMO.Windows is more common in science and engineering. Granted, OS X doesn't have the software availability to match Windows, but there are cases where a vendor produces both.
For example, I've tested an application suite (LabView) in both it's OS X and Windows versions, and the Windows version was better IMO. When I mixed it with other software (MultiSim = related, same vendor), it worked better as well (tighter integration without the errors I had when trying to use an OS X copy of LabView and Windows edition of MultiSIM).
Linux tends to offer stronger competition to Windows in science and engineering than OS X from what I've seen (there are commercial applications available).
It depends. AFAIK UNIX and UNIX-like systems are widely used in science.
Granted, OS X doesn't have the software availability to match Windows, but there are cases where a vendor produces both. Though it's probably Windows in engineering.
Yes, that is another problem. Developers putting more effort into Windows development. This this usually is related to specific fields, as architecture and 3D modeling. But then again this is not related to the OS itself as it is to the developers, for instance modeling on Linux is becoming increasingly more popular as the OS is less problematic (compatibility issues aside), where cross-platform apps such as Maya or Houdini are available.
Probably, as the Mac versions are usually not that well developed, while the Linux ones are as good as the Windows counterparts, just with the advantages of Linux.
So it's not Windows being more productive here, it's apps being developed to run better on it.
When it comes to OS X, I'd say that designing etc. is more productive on Macs.
I don't know for sure if they are, and I'm pretty sure they *aren't* making decisions based on what we're posting, but...I think it would be silly of Apple NOT to be checking out these forums -- part of running a business is customer feedback, and this is FREE information they're able to collect about various topics that even they might not have considered.
I'd be willing to bet they have a small team of people who regularly lurk around the major Mac forums just to see what the hot topics are.
VirtualRain said:
True, it's marketed towards pros/businesses who need raw power, stability, etc; but it also happens to be the only desktop tower that Apple makes.
I'm definitely not a "pro" by Apple's marketing standards, but when I switched from PCs 2 years ago, I wasn't willing to give up my desktop with multiple internal hard drives (I have 2+ TB of raw data loaded on 3 hard drives, plus a full TB drive strictly for my most important Time Machine backups.)
In general, I don't care for the all in one design of the iMac (although it certainly would be powerful enough for the things I do every day) because of the glossy screen (terrible for color-correcting images like I do), and because if the screen were to go out, I'd be stuck without a computer until it's fixed. At least with the MP, I have my own choice of monitor.
Yes, that choice and flexibility comes at a steep price, but it's all they offer, and I was lucky enough to be able to afford it at the time. It's lasted me 2 years so far, and I have to think it could easily go another 2-3 years without much trouble.
It's also given me something that NO PC ever has - literally silent computing, and that's worth a lot to me as well.
You can't mix the different versions of DDR3 (non ECC, UDIMM, or RDIMM). It has to remain consistent.
The OEM is UDIMM, but it gets a bit more complicated when mixing; you can mix 1GB with 2GB sticks, but not the 4GB sticks, as those have thermal sensors (and all of them have to have it, hence the mention when using 4GB UDIMM that they must all be 4GB UDIMM's).
What this means, is you can get a 6GB kit (3x 2GB sticks), and use one of the OEM 1GB sticks to get 7GB total (fill all 4x DIMM sockets). It won't run triple channel, but that's not going to be an issue given your software usage.
This makes it very clear, Thanks!
I agree, plus they have a lot of people working for them, and some must come across this stuff merely through poking around. The bottom line is that they know what users want, and it seams pretty obvious that they funnel their users to specific purchases.
There is a company called Red that is specifically trying to give filmmakers the cameras that they want. If they can pull it off, it'll leave Canon, Sony, etc.. scurrying to catch up. Companies and even individuals that are concerned with their users needs get my loyalty. I've got 8 years in Canon video cams, but am looking forward to switch to Red in the near future.
probably in the short term. But the general consensus seems to be that the MP outlook is only going to get worse over time, and I'm inclined to agree
I don't think this'll happen, as it would totally destroy their reputation of computers for creative professionals, If they pull the pro market the MBP would also be dead not to mention all the other comps in a pros surroundings (there are 6 macs in my immediate family) Not to mention how @#$@!! off a production Co, etc would be that are heavily invested in macs, they wouldn't just quietly switch, they'd be very vocal publicly and mac comp sales would come tumbling down. IMO
I can't really blame them for a lack of focus on their pro line (though not necessarily happy with it), the i products have skyrocket them to much more of a major player, when they start to subside (/competition catches up), if they put more focus back on the pro market, there'll be more people that are connected with mac, makes sense in some respects, and they do have to (as a corporation) focus on what's hot.
I think Apple would be totally fine just selling laptops and iMacs.
As far as killing the MBP, I don't see the connection anymore. It's the PC market that has $900 i7 quad core laptops right now.
I have read a lot in this thread about Pros and workstations, and if that helps you sleep at night, great. But if you drew up a list of the 10 most important things to Apple, Inc. I'm not sure Mac Pros even make the list.
It does depend. I was only mentioning OS X vs. Windows, as Windows has a much larger presence.
And with UNIX (Solaris, Linux,...), it varies widely, as some areas may use more UNIX, others Windows. Most of the software I use is offered in either Windows or UNIX, not OS X. LabView was odd in this regard (National Instruments is the developer).
Software developers will follow the system market share. Most workstations are PC's running Windows, or perhaps UNIX (usually some Linux distro).
UNIX has some advantages, but ultimately, they're developing software to make a profit.
Porting is likely to be used, and depending on what/how it was done, can make a big difference in performance.
For example, porting a Windows program to Linux or OS X usually doesn't work that well (I've seen quite a bit of commentary on this before). But if a company wants to cross-develop, and really writes the code for both Windows and UNIX, the UNIX version can be ported to OS X with better results than a Windows port.
But it comes down to:
1. will they?
(is it financially viable for example)
2. is Apple doing something that they're concerned will break/hinder the program's functionality (i.e. Apple drops a major underpinning chunck of code, such as the Carbon/Cocoa aspects of OS X, and caused all kinds of grief between they and Adobe)?
This was my point, not about which OS is better. I need applications that work. Period, and there's precious little for OS X usable to me for productive work, and what is, doesn't run as well as Windows or UNIX counterparts.
Also, given the need to run multiple applications that are meant to work together, having them running under a single OS is highly important. VM didn't work (tried it), and booting back and forth isn't an option either.
While I agree with this to some extent. Think about all the film schools or design schools. If you can't take your comp to a pro level, why start off with something lesser. I actually thought about getting my daughter a PC for college since she doesn't really use any pro aps, but then my wife said that all the comps at the school were macs. If the pro support ends, the teachers that are teaching those subject would then not use macs, and the students would tend to use the comp in the platform that they are being taught, and that's just one example. How many people here or people that use higher end macs pro/semi-professionally would continue to do so if
abandoned the pro market. Looking a it from the point of view of % of the people I know, There would be a mass exodus away from macs. Sure we'd use our comps as long as possible, but most would be #**%# and never look back if they had to switch.Personally I sleep fine, and plan on using this next MP till it dies & see what happens by then. Since I don't foresee Photo or video formats changing too much anytime soon, I should be fine regardless.
If
does abandon the pro market, I'll simply stop buying mac products period. There are alternatives to ipods & itunes.Even if they were just breaking even with the pro market (which I'm sure they're not), I can't see any benefit for them dropping it, but I can see a lot of harm from them doing so.
Isn't it frightening that we discuss about this matter at all? Steve J. brought us to a point where nobody can be for sure that there will be release of a 2011 Mac Pro. In my eyes this is a horrible situation. Customers don't know if they can't spend their money on a new piece of tech next year but most importantly developers no longer know if they write code for a platform that will be abandoned or maybe kept alive for 2 or 3 years.
Well to be fair to Microsoft, when explorer.exe crashes, you can just start it in Task Manager and then most things will go back to normal. If Finder crashes in OS X, you will very often get a kernel panic and then the whole compute dies.
I understand what you're saying, but my point was more of OS X being more productive because of the OS itself than because of the software. If we're talking about software, no matter how more productive OS X is, if it runs so badly there will ultimately be a bigger gain in productivity with Windows.
So, IMO when it comes to cross platform apps that do not have significant problems in either OS (such as Adobe's), OS X is more productive. That's why
So I say that Windows is not more productive at anything by itself, but it can be more productive for some things because of external factors.
Well, to be fairer I was talking about Finder freezes and not crashes (as I've yet to experience a Finder crash, which I guess would be sign of a serious problem), which can easily be fixed by Relaunching the Finder from the Dock.
What? Since when? It's been easily force-quittable for years now, and I have found that very few of my kernel panics are finder-related at all. Usually the result of me trying to do something incredibly unsupported or ill-advised.
While I agree with this to some extent. Think about all the film schools or design schools. If you can't take your comp to a pro level, why start off with something lesser. I actually thought about getting my daughter a PC for college since she doesn't really use any pro aps, but then my wife said that all the comps at the school were macs. If the pro support ends, the teachers that are teaching those subject would then not use macs, and the students would tend to use the comp in the platform that they are being taught, and that's just one example. How many people here or people that use higher end macs pro/semi-professionally would continue to do so if
Personally I sleep fine, and plan on using this next MP till it dies & see what happens by then. Since I don't foresee Photo or video formats changing too much anytime soon, I should be fine regardless.
If
I think you've made a very important point that many forget; the pro applications are the driving force for Mac's premium brand recognition. Without them - Apple's reputation would deteriorate rapidly as a sought after computing platform.
I'm sure that all of Adobe's Mac versions start out at the professional level first. Adobe confident in the size of Apple's professional user base, as indicating a profitable market to sell to, will develop the next version of Photoshop. All the code and features would then be translated over to the consumer version of Photoshop Elements. The initial costly developemnet for the pro version is spread over the consumer version because much of the hard work in developing the ideas and code has been done and paid for - and the profit generated. All Mac users benefit by the choices offered.
If Apple drops the pro level hardware, the professionals will quickly abandon the platform - and Adobe will most likely stop developing Photoshop CS. At best, they might come out with anemic, half hearted attempts to capture a little more cash from Elements - but the main impetus would be gone because of the work that needs to be done and the develpment costs would not be spread out over the professional market as well.
Soon after the professionals leave, and software developement slows considerably - the consumer will realize that the Mac they have no longer has anywhere meaningful for them to go to. They purchased a Mac because they heard over the years that it was a good product - now the Photoshop Elements user has no where to go if they decide they aspire to a more professional version of the software - Photoshop CS. Apple has become a dead end system to anyone that might want to go beyond the basics. It becomes strictly a consumer brand with less and less real choice and no professional user base to provide long term loyalty and finacial support. Less and less consumers would then want to have a Mac - giving more and more reason for third party software companies to stop development for the Mac platform entirely.
Mike
The school may very well use macs, but there is little reason to.
Macs are nice looking computers. Apple does industrial design well. If you makes you feel more creative to use a nice looking Mac over a bland beige box or some alien outer space looking thing, I won't discount that, but as far as tools for getting the job done? I don't buy it.
"Macs are better at design", has not been true since Windows 2000 Professional.
There was a time when Final Cut Pro was revolutionary and destroying the world of $100,000 Avid systems, but that was 10 years ago. The PC counter to that was PC dominance in 3d apps and video cards. Now that Premiere Pro is not total junk, and Avids are not $100,000 anymore, there really is no clear cut statement that holds water. If you need FCP or Logic, fine, get a Mac. But personally I enjoy the CS4 workflow between PS, AI, Pr, Sb, AE, etc.
Otherwise, you can get it done with a Windows machine, no problem.
Both platforms run what are to me, the DOMINANT creative apps - Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects. Both platforms are strong in web development tools like Aptanta, Eclipse, Flex, Flash, Dreamweaver etc.
I write this with a heavy heart, not with glee, but I never replaced my dual 2.0GHz G5. When push came to shove, I just homebuilt a PC for a fraction of the cost, and oddly, I've never had issues with stability, viruses, or UI efficiency or any other FUD that is out there. I've also had TOTAL control over my hardware selection, including upgrade paths. Look at the intel roadmap and those are the CPUs I can buy. Look at the ATi or nVidia roadmap and those are the video cards I can buy. Same with hard drives, SSDs, etc.
The real craw with MP hardware is exemplified by the entry level $2500 Mac Pro. It's a Pro workstation right? So, how come the first thing I have to do is throw 3GB of ram in the trashcan and replace the $20 GT120 video card with one of 2 overpriced video cards or go the flash it myself route bringing my total cost to $3000?
I'll put my $1250 i7 920 home build up against ANY single CPU Xeon based Mac Pro. And that's just sad.
And yes, I'm pro and I make cheddar with my box.
What Pro App are you talking about? Avid? 3d Studio Max? AutoCAD?
FCP and Logic have their place, but they are not so dominant anymore to be held in such crazy high esteem. Alone they can not save or justify the platform. Compressor is TRASH.
On Adobe, it took over a year to release Intel native apps after the switch, Photoshop is 64-bit on Windows, not on the Mac, and now all CS4 apps are equal (ie OnLocation) on both platforms.
Keep in mind though, you're trying to look at one OS vs. another. It's not that simple. And OS prefference is highly subjective anyway (there can be technical differences, but the gap that once existed between OS X and Windows no longer exists; i.e. XP vs. Tiger). Then there's specific useage; what works for one person, may be a failure for someone else as their needs, considerations, and priorities (i.e. what could be compromised on) may be totally different.
Utimately, a system = hardware + OS + application software. This is how I tend to look at things BTW, and how I end up with the systems I do.
If any one area is gimped for the intended use, there's a real problem, and users will start to look for other options of in order to create a system that will do what they need/want. And this basic premise is applicable in both personal and professional use.
What Pro App are you talking about? Avid? 3d Studio Max? AutoCAD?
FCP and Logic have their place, but they are not so dominant anymore to be held in such crazy high esteem. Alone they can not save or justify the platform. Compressor is TRASH.
On Adobe, it took over a year to release Intel native apps after the switch, Photoshop is 64-bit on Windows, not on the Mac, and now all CS4 apps are equal (ie OnLocation) on both platforms.
Exactly.
The more you neglect the professional user, the more likely they will switch to meet their needs. And that goes for software venders; if they find it not worth their while to support a platform.
Mike