Is Apple still serious about the professional market?

[nanofrog]

Intel likes to use "UP: uniprocessor" for single socket systems.

The UP and DP processors tend to be nearly identical short of SMP or having the second QPI link enabled nowadays for the DP ones. MP (4 sockets or more) tend to be rather different.

I know you already knew that though.

Yeah, I know. Personally, I like SP and DP, as there's a better sense to it IMO rather than U for uni.

Others still use it as well, and is another reason I'm accustomed to it. But if I see UP, I do know what it is.


**Stop changing terms Intel...*

 

[Eidorian]

**Stop changing terms Intel...*

I was going to make a similar comment. That would have been so much cooler.

 

[nanofrog]

I was going to make a similar comment. That would have been so much cooler.

Well?!?!? Where is it?

 

[Eidorian]

It's much too late now. Don't worry about it.

 

[nanofrog]

It's much too late now. Don't worry about it.

Drat. I was hoping for a good laugh.

 

[lemonade-maker]

I simplify it to:
SP Nehalem = T3500
DP Nehalem = T5500 or T7500

There are cases where the IT argument is quite valid, particularly in large quantities of machines, but I don't think this is one of them. I really do think a single image could be used on all three of the above models (of the same year), and it would certainly be the case for the DP systems, as it's likely the same board.

You may be right but the T3500 with the chip you mention still comes in at $2250 with 3gb of ram and a 750gb drive from smell, er, dell. No os. Only $250 less for a much lesser machine than a pro. The point still is, Apple is right in line with other manufacturers price wise. Discounts from both Apple and Dell are pretty much the same too.

 

[nanofrog]

You may be right but the T3500 with the chip you mention still comes in at $2250 with 3gb of ram and a 750gb drive from smell, er, dell. No os. Only $250 less for a much lesser machine than a pro. The point still is, Apple is right in line with other manufacturers price wise. Discounts from both Apple and Dell are pretty much the same too.

Where did you aquire the pricing? Web or phone?
I ask, as I've had much better quotes over the phone every single time. Sun has decent systems as well, as does HP (though they do tend to cost more last I checked). And the warranty is 3yrs standard, which is an additional cost from Apple, and the on-site aspect has limitations (distance).

Another area I've had issues with MP's in terms of cost (and difficulty), is 3rd party add-ons, particularly RAID. Fewer choices, and the need of special adapters increases the cost comparitive to the PC side. External enclosures and drive costs are otherwise the same (for same level of equipment).

As per quality, it's in line with MP's, but you won't have to haul it in to a store if it ever needs repair. They'll send someone out, or overnight you the parts if you request, which is highly desirable by corporations to keep down time to a minimum. Home users/SOHO pros however, may be more flexible in this regard.

 

[IntelliUser]

All Paranoid BS.

Of course Apple doesn't focus only on Macs but on the other products too, yet that doesn't mean that they've forgotten the pro market.

Macs are and will continue to dominate the pro creative market.

Windows are Linux are used only for budget purposes. Of course there's no point in buying a Mac Pro or any other pro workstation when doing things such as 3D, since all you need is power, power, power. You're better off getting some custom built PCs for the lowest price you can afford.

Latest example is Avatar. All the 3D was done on PCs (running either Windows or Linux, I'm guessing Windows for modeling and Linux for rendering, as usual) yet all the Adobe apps (so Photoshopping, Vector drawing, video editing and special FX) were run on Macs.

Apple is still serious about the Pro Market as they are serious about the consumer one. Yes, they've gone on and mixed the two (with the latest quad core iMacs), but I find that rather helpful for the pros whom don't need expandability.

The prices are very competitive for workstations and All in Ones. Hardware-wise the portable line is not, it needs a refresh.

As for me, I still don't think Windows is good enough to be able to replace Macs for what they've historically been used for.

 

[Uncle Pinny]

Mac Pro's are still very popular in the creative industries and will continue to be so. Where I work (production house, central London) we have loads of edit suites, most of which use Mac Pro coupled with Final Cut. As do loads of edit house and post production places around. Final Cut Pro is a great product and used by a LOT of places out there. Our audio suites also run Mac Pros.

I work with title graphics/3d and we're hoping to jump over to Mac's having had years of Windows as it will give us a chance for more Final Cut integration as well as open up the opportunity for us to use Motion and Shake. We currently do mostly After Effects work coupled with a bit of Maya.

Our print design department all use Mac Pro's albeit older ones. I'd say half of the interactive (web) team use Mac's as well. That will certainly continue. Of my experience working in production 90% of places are Apple based.

The current models are a little dated sure, but I also don't see the price and being too high when compared to similarly specced PC workstations from the usual suspects. I guess that will change in the near future regards the Pro spec and you will be drooling over them once more.

 

[Chaos123x]

Is it true Apple is going to sell off it's pro apps to Adobe?

 

[TennisandMusic]

All Paranoid BS.

Of course Apple doesn't focus only on Macs but on the other products too, yet that doesn't mean that they've forgotten the pro market.

Macs are and will continue to dominate the pro creative market.

Windows are Linux are used only for budget purposes. Of course there's no point in buying a Mac Pro or any other pro workstation when doing things such as 3D, since all you need is power, power, power. You're better off getting some custom built PCs for the lowest price you can afford.

Latest example is Avatar. All the 3D was done on PCs (running either Windows or Linux, I'm guessing Windows for modeling and Linux for rendering, as usual) yet all the Adobe apps (so Photoshopping, Vector drawing, video editing and special FX) were run on Macs.

Apple is still serious about the Pro Market as they are serious about the consumer one. Yes, they've gone on and mixed the two (with the latest quad core iMacs), but I find that rather helpful for the pros whom don't need expandability.

The prices are very competitive for workstations and All in Ones. Hardware-wise the portable line is not, it needs a refresh.

As for me, I still don't think Windows is good enough to be able to replace Macs for what they've historically been used for.

How is it "paranoid bs" when Apple's ACTIONS speak volumes? A lot of what you stated here is simply not true. Adobe software is better now on Windows, regardless of whether or not "Avatar" used Mac versions. They would have been far better off using Windows, if that is the case.

The prices are NOT competitive whatsoever for workstations, and who cares about all in ones for the pro market? Just because the iMac is pretty powerful at the moment, doesn't make it suitable for all pro work. Some? Sure. But no option for a matte screen? No access to the hard drive? A single firewire port and only usb 2.0 when usb 3.0 is now easy to get on PC? The iMac is far from being a real pro machine. It is prosumer.

No, it is not paranoid bs, it is legit concerns by users being gouged for far less functionality and reliability.

 

[IntelliUser]

How is it "paranoid bs" when Apple's ACTIONS speak volumes? A lot of what you stated here is simply not true. Adobe software is better now on Windows, regardless of whether or not "Avatar" used Mac versions. They would have been far better off using Windows, if that is the case.

And that's bull****. Why is it better, because it's 64-bit? BS! Adobe's apps still run more stable on Macs.

The prices are NOT competitive whatsoever for workstations

They are.

and who cares about all in ones for the pro market? Just because the iMac is pretty powerful at the moment, doesn't make it suitable for all pro work. Some? Sure.

That's what I meant, it's alright for SOME professionals that don't need a full blown workstation.

But no option for a matte screen?

It's not a problem for everyone.

No access to the hard drive?

Can't you upgrade the HDD manually on the new iMacs?

A single firewire port and only usb 2.0 when usb 3.0 is now easy to get on PC? The iMac is far from being a real pro machine. It is prosumer.

A prosumer machine is good for some professionals.

No, it is not paranoid bs, it is legit concerns by users being gouged for far less functionality and reliability.

It IS paranoid BS. Mac workstations (and all the other models besides the portables) are competitively priced and very reliable. So what you're saying is BS.

 

[Techhie]

It's not a problem for everyone. (matte screen)

No, but for most professionals who require any kind of color accuracy, it is.

Can't you upgrade the HDD manually on the new iMacs?

Technically, however it's not in most pro's interests to purposely nullify AppleCare.

 

[IntelliUser]

No, but for most professionals who require any kind of color accuracy, it is.

Yeah, but I think there are professionals who don't actually put their screen in front of the sunlight, aren't there?

Technically, however it's not in most pro's interests to purposely nullify AppleCare.

Ok then, how about using external drives? And you can get pretty big hard drives with iMacs anyway.

 

[snouter]

Can't you upgrade the HDD manually on the new iMacs?

You have to take the glass off and work through the front.

The obvious solution would have been a trap door on the rear of the unit, but that would have messed up the aesthetic of the case and we can't have that.

 

[leekohler]

Yeah, but I think there are professionals who don't actually put their screen in front of the sunlight, aren't there?

Sure there are- location photographers and filmmakers. Even in an office, you don't always have control of background light sources. Glossy screens and the word "professional" do not mix.

 

[Eidorian]

Ok then, how about using external drives? And you can get pretty big hard drives with iMacs anyway.

FireWire 800 is your only effective option. Even that's getting old.

Put a USB 3.0/eSATA combo port and you have a dead Mac Pro for the majority of people. After that get an Ultrasharp U2410 with the money you saved.

 

[nanofrog]

How is it "paranoid bs" when Apple's ACTIONS speak volumes?

Correct, particularly when I think about Apple's response to smacman, where he was threatened that warranty support would be denied if he pursued it any further.

That's not the behavior of a company that still cares about it's professional customers. In the past, the issue would have been addressed, not ignored and blow the users off as "within limits" when users have proven otherwise.

The prices are NOT competitive whatsoever for workstations, and who cares about all in ones for the pro market?

This has been proven on multiple occasions. The prices are higher than their PC counterparts, especially when you use phone ordering, as you will get lower pricing compared to that listed on the website. And many Apple supporters in this regard tend to forget the included 3yr on-site warranty with PC versions (no distance limits BTW). The complaints of a lack of FW or in some cases, a second NIC port, cards will solve it rather inexpensively. Even when those are added, the PC's still come in cheaper.

No, it is not paranoid bs, it is legit concerns by users being gouged for far less functionality and reliability.

They are legitimate complaints, not BS. There's an entire thread on the audio issue alone.

No, but for most professionals who require any kind of color accuracy, it is.

I find glossy harder on my eyes, and have had multiple ophthalmologists (not optometrists) tell me it does cause eye strain faster than a matte finish. Think about the anti-reflective coatings available for eye glasses.

For me at least, it's a real issue, as eye strain causes me severe headaches. Since I've gone with matte, it's been reduced significantly.

 

[TennisandMusic]

And that's bull****. Why is it better, because it's 64-bit? BS! Adobe's apps still run more stable on Macs.



They are.



That's what I meant, it's alright for SOME professionals that don't need a full blown workstation.


It's not a problem for everyone.

Can't you upgrade the HDD manually on the new iMacs?

A prosumer machine is good for some professionals.



It IS paranoid BS. Mac workstations (and all the other models besides the portables) are competitively priced and very reliable. So what you're saying is BS.

Dude...no need to get overly emotional. What I said is not "bull" and I would suggest you grow up immediately. And perhaps also apologize.

Adobe apps ARE BETTER on Windows. Accept it, ok? I am 100% OSX personally, but this is widely known and accepted. Easier to work with bigger files (yes 64 bit helps), better acceleration, and it IS more stable. Why do you insist the Mac versions are more stable? Snow Leopard is the buggiest OS I have used in ages, I get constant crashes across various apps, including Apple's own. Apple screwed Adobe over by pulling the rug out from 64 bit carbon, I find it funny that so many Apple idiots blame Adobe for being "lazy" as a result.

Apple machines ARE NOT COMPETITIVELY PRICED. It is so so easy to disprove this. I can build an i7 920 machine with six ram slots (not 4), fill it up with TWELVE gigs of DDR3, overclock the thing to 3.6ghz effortlessly, put it in a nice case, put in a 1TB hard drive, a nice video card and all for around 1000 dollars. A LESS capable machine that overheats when you play an mp3 (!!) from apple costs 2500 dollars. You get 3 gigs of ram (with only four slots) and a complete crap video card with this setup.

The iMac monitor will be able to be purchased from Dell for around 800 dollars it looks like, soon enough. Putting together an i5 system like what is in the machine is on the order 700 dollars perhaps. Keep in mind those prices are already with profit built in. So Apple does make a killing (which is fine with me, I just want them to make GOOD machines, which they don't), and are not competitively priced whatsoever.

Don't even get people started on the "value" of the laptops.

You really have no leg to stand on in this discussion if your argument is that Adobe products are better on OSX and that all of the hardware is right in line with competitors. I mean this is the kind of blatant brainwashing that way too many Apple fans have fallen victim too, and it's incredibly ignorant to reality.

Also you can only upgrade the hard drive manually on an iMac if you disassemble the entire machine. Why doesn't Apple just include a little door on the side or something like that? It wouldn't hurt the design, it would help users IMMENSELY, and also cut down on service needs for the iMac, thereby saving Apple money. What is the REASON for it? Hard drives will die. It is a matter of when, not if. This means that iMac's at some point will need to be serviced by Apple, when it really doesn't have to be. This is akin to Honda making it impossible for a user to change a car battery. Who on Earth would stand for that?

So please refrain from your "BS" comments, they only reflect on yourself.

 

[nanofrog]

Apple machines ARE NOT COMPETITIVELY PRICED. It is so so easy to disprove this. I can build an i7 920 machine with six ram slots (not 4), fill it up with TWELVE gigs of DDR3, overclock the thing to 3.6ghz effortlessly, put it in a nice case, put in a 1TB hard drive, a nice video card and all for around 1000 dollars. A LESS capable machine that overheats when you play an mp3 (!!) from apple costs 2500 dollars. You get 3 gigs of ram (with only four slots) and a complete crap video card with this setup.

You can even build one with a Xeon 3520 for less than Apple charges, as there are boards that can run both i7-9xx and the Xeon W35xx parts (has the microcode for both lines, as it's only ECC support that separates them). ASUS makes such boards, as at least one other (SuperMicro). They have more RAM slots, and in the case of ASUS, can even be OC'ed if the user desires.

 

[xper]

Well i don´t understand why people compare the current Mac Pro with "PC":s, it is unfare to compare prices with a custom PC which have the latest hardware with constant modified prices, the Mac Pro is on the end of its cycle with no prices adjusted at all.

It seems like everyone is flaming the Mac Pro and accuse Apple of overpriced hardware, it may be true now but when the update comes, hopefully in March, the story will be completely different!

 

[snouter]

it is unfare to compare prices with a custom PC which have the latest hardware with constant modified prices, the Mac Pro is on the end of its cycle with no prices adjusted at all.

Ah, it's this very hardware inflexibility that has people in arms.

The stock video cards were a joke when these machines were new.

They give you six 1GB sticks of ram? So you pretty much need to place those in the trashcan and buy all new aftermarket ram.

The 2.26 octo ends up being $4000 when it's ready to go. 2.26, neato.

 

[leekohler]

Dude...no need to get overly emotional. What I said is not "bull" and I would suggest you grow up immediately. And perhaps also apologize.

Adobe apps ARE BETTER on Windows. Accept it, ok? I am 100% OSX personally, but this is widely known and accepted. Easier to work with bigger files (yes 64 bit helps), better acceleration, and it IS more stable. Why do you insist the Mac versions are more stable? Snow Leopard is the buggiest OS I have used in ages, I get constant crashes across various apps, including Apple's own. Apple screwed Adobe over by pulling the rug out from 64 bit carbon, I find it funny that so many Apple idiots blame Adobe for being "lazy" as a result.

Apple machines ARE NOT COMPETITIVELY PRICED. It is so so easy to disprove this. I can build an i7 920 machine with six ram slots (not 4), fill it up with TWELVE gigs of DDR3, overclock the thing to 3.6ghz effortlessly, put it in a nice case, put in a 1TB hard drive, a nice video card and all for around 1000 dollars. A LESS capable machine that overheats when you play an mp3 (!!) from apple costs 2500 dollars. You get 3 gigs of ram (with only four slots) and a complete crap video card with this setup.

The iMac monitor will be able to be purchased from Dell for around 800 dollars it looks like, soon enough. Putting together an i5 system like what is in the machine is on the order 700 dollars perhaps. Keep in mind those prices are already with profit built in. So Apple does make a killing (which is fine with me, I just want them to make GOOD machines, which they don't), and are not competitively priced whatsoever.

Don't even get people started on the "value" of the laptops.

You really have no leg to stand on in this discussion if your argument is that Adobe products are better on OSX and that all of the hardware is right in line with competitors. I mean this is the kind of blatant brainwashing that way too many Apple fans have fallen victim too, and it's incredibly ignorant to reality.

Also you can only upgrade the hard drive manually on an iMac if you disassemble the entire machine. Why doesn't Apple just include a little door on the side or something like that? It wouldn't hurt the design, it would help users IMMENSELY, and also cut down on service needs for the iMac, thereby saving Apple money. What is the REASON for it? Hard drives will die. It is a matter of when, not if. This means that iMac's at some point will need to be serviced by Apple, when it really doesn't have to be. This is akin to Honda making it impossible for a user to change a car battery. Who on Earth would stand for that?

So please refrain from your "BS" comments, they only reflect on yourself.

Agreed. Apple needs to pick it up. I've been using their machines since the IIe and am a daily pro user, and would never touch Windows before. Now- I'm looking into playing with Windows 7 or just building a hackintosh. Seriously- what does that say about Apple?

 

[Gomff]

From where I'm standing, it seems strange so many people are making a big deal about Adobe favoring Windows.....Given how corporate Adobe have gotten over the last 10 years, it comes as no surprise they've got more in bed with Microsoft. It seems weird to me folks are complaining about Apple's pricing for the 2009 pro's (which is steep, I completely agree) but nobody mentions how Adobe are extorting huge amounts each year for a trickle of improvements.

Personally, I'd love it if Apple or some other company gave the CS apps a decent run for their money, it would be good for the industry to have some competition. Adobe can kiss where the sun doesn't shine as far as I'm concerned, if you want to talk about companies changing personalities, they're ahead of Apple in the queue.

I do have issues with Apple, but their software is often much better value than most. If they came up with an alternative for Photoshop, I'd definitely be interested.

Sorry about the slight tangent....Adobe have been a huge disappointment recently

 

[lemonade-maker]

Adobe = print media. Print media is dead dead dead. There are much better alternatives for web-based media, gimp for example. Apple doesn't care about print media and shouldn't. Some people are still in the print-media business and wanna use macs but that will end. Anything Adobe does for web media flat out sucks. Try creating a real dhtml ajax site with Adobe junk. Photoshop is good for creating comps but gimp works just as well. No reason for Adobe to exist except for what has become the fringe. Times have changed. Macs are far superior for creating web media. No true web dev company will use hackintoshes or pc's for web media. In that game its linux or mac. Windows will not work. Comparable pcs are in the same price range as mac pros. No real company builds workstations from scratch or buys from supermicro.