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 the Mac Pro WAY overpriced?
- Thread starter Hookflash
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, you would have to compare the Mac Pro with a Dell Precision Workstation. The only problem for Apple is... that they look even worse when compared to the same class of computer -- especially in the graphics department AND in the support options. Dell builds in high-end pro graphics cards that were designed to make OpenGL fly. Apple on the other side builds in consumer graphics cards and their support plain and simple sucks when compared to Dell --> there is NO five-years-of-on-site-same-or-next-business-day warranty in the Apple world. End of story.
The design and OS X support are the only real selling points for Macs (where the OS X-part only counts if you really need that operating system).
As for the legality of running OS X on non-Apple hardware: I'm still waiting for a German or European court decision on the question whether Apple's EULA is legally binding or not. I don't care for an American court ruling, because it won't affect me as a German citizen. And since Apple still has not sued the PearC people, yet, Apple's legal department probably already knows that they would lose a Psystar-like lawsuit in Germany.
I wasn't thinking in terms of teams that small, but rather if the development team hits say 50+ (all in).
Control, as you well know, has, and always will be an issue. And I certainly understand the comment that people only want to process concepts handed to them into completed syntax, rather than actually create the concept as well. Well that must have sucked!
Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of things these days.
- Yeah, fortunately or unfortunately, the bulk weight of real beta-testing has been shifted to end-users in most of the large productions. Most companies with multiple large to semi-large developments going on, force their developers to do some alpha testing as is typical anyway, run a more focused debugging program toward the last months just before release and then give it to us. These days with publicly available commercial softwares there usually are no beta testers - only maybe a beta coordinator. This is why crashes will send in a dump with a comments section for you to fill out. We are the beta testers.
I just wish they'd stop being so cheap as skip in house Beta testing completely just to save a few bucks, and just rely on the avalanche of bug reports. Perhaps not quite that simple, or cheap to Beta Test, but you get the idea. Uh huh, sure you didn't!
LOL!! Bob Hunt was probably just waiting for you to say that!
Ooooo...
"Logic Pro 9 features new Amp Designer and Pedalboard plug-ins that provide realistic virtual guitar amps and stompbox effects..." I hope this means more competition for Amplitube and Guitar Rig - I love those apps! I wasn't thinking in terms of teams that small, but rather if the development team hits say 50+ (all in).
My 3 favorite apps of all time were essentially created and brought to maturity by just 3 or 4 developers: LightWave 3D, MotionBuilder (aka: FilmBox), and Eyeon's "Digital Fusion".
I think Houdini was too but I'm not 100% sure. So that would make it my 4 most favorite apps. Well that must have sucked!
Not with a 256K ISDN connection and taking full advantage of Wake On LAN it didn't.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of things these days.
Yeah. And keep in mind I'm not saying this is the case with Apple. It's just usually the case these days is all.
.
Don't wanna offend you.. but that's cheap!!
I don't think the you can really compare the MacPro Workstation with a cheap ass thing like the Dell XPS. Isn't the series more comparable with the entry range MacMini? And what is it with wannabe Mac users constantly comparing the two systems? Are they just stoopid?
I really really hope this is sarcasm.
It's really sad you can't tell these days.
Hm, always DELL comparisons, how about an comparison with HP Z600 Workstations? These use Xeon 5500 CPUs even with the single CPU configuration and they do cost even more, you have to buy an graphics card also, as an Mac Pro single CPU which comes with the cheaper Xeon 3500 CPUs but at least with graphics card. The usage of DP Xeons might look useless, but the QPI of the 55xx CPUs is higher as of the 35xx.
Of course the HP doesn´t have Apple pixie dust nor fancy case, tho the Z600 interior design is clear also. The maxed out Z600 costs nearly $10.000 and the maxed out Mac Pro also will go about the $10.000 mark, tho the Z600 then has 24GB RAM while the Apple Store only offers up to 12GB then.
So viewed, the Mac Pro isn´t that overpriced at all. Compared with i7 consumer PCs it´s of course expensive while offering not much advantages over them, except a few details but sometimes details can make the difference.
Compared to 2008 MPs it still feels bad sometimes to buy an 2009 MP but that´s mostly INTELs fault because of the i7 consumer chip. And Apple then ends up with using i5 chips in the future for their consumer products, not i7, maybe. Then we have the same discussions why Apple using i5 instead of i7 and so on.
However, the thing with on-site service is really a deal breaker for some companies, IMO. Apple wants to be the "Rolls Royce" of computing, then why we have to wait 5-7 days for an replacement machine if one fails, especially considering the price of the Mac Pro? I know a few companies which would like to use Apple computers but they can´t afford an "in case" repair wait of 7 days while Dell or HP comes mostly the same day you call the support and repair or exchange the machine on site.
Of course the HP doesn´t have Apple pixie dust nor fancy case, tho the Z600 interior design is clear also. The maxed out Z600 costs nearly $10.000 and the maxed out Mac Pro also will go about the $10.000 mark, tho the Z600 then has 24GB RAM while the Apple Store only offers up to 12GB then.
So viewed, the Mac Pro isn´t that overpriced at all. Compared with i7 consumer PCs it´s of course expensive while offering not much advantages over them, except a few details but sometimes details can make the difference.
Compared to 2008 MPs it still feels bad sometimes to buy an 2009 MP but that´s mostly INTELs fault because of the i7 consumer chip. And Apple then ends up with using i5 chips in the future for their consumer products, not i7, maybe. Then we have the same discussions why Apple using i5 instead of i7 and so on.
However, the thing with on-site service is really a deal breaker for some companies, IMO. Apple wants to be the "Rolls Royce" of computing, then why we have to wait 5-7 days for an replacement machine if one fails, especially considering the price of the Mac Pro? I know a few companies which would like to use Apple computers but they can´t afford an "in case" repair wait of 7 days while Dell or HP comes mostly the same day you call the support and repair or exchange the machine on site.
I don't use those specific applications as you know, but it's reasonable for such a situation to occur IMO, especially early into a new field.My 3 favorite apps of all time were essentially created and brought to maturity by just 3 or 4 developers: LightWave 3D, MotionBuilder (aka: FilmBox), and Eyeon's "Digital Fusion".
Grrr... Lucky b@$t@rd.Not with a 256K ISDN connection and taking full advantage of Wake On LAN it didn't.
No, I'm not either, but it's not unreasonable to expect they follow development trends for both hardware and software.Yeah. And keep in mind I'm not saying this is the case with Apple. It's just usually the case these days is all.
Indeed. Isn't the XPS Dell's top of the consumer line? Board and component quality levels should be about on par with the Mac Pro then. Well, given that it's a single proc and entirely different.
They offer X7400 series boxes on the upper side too so it's a full spectrum solution from gaming to game & film creation to scientific visualization and etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwtrO4ozqwk
Can you tell I'm a GFX guy?I also agree with TheSilencer! There's more than just Dell out there!
ugh, have you heard the demos of Amp Designer?
if you ask me, it blows Amplitube and Guitar Rig into pieces.
i hope that the video is not overprocessed, because if it sounds like this in real life, it matches up with revalver (except its not that much brand biased.. except for so many LOGIC brand amps, i never heard of those..j/k)
and yes, i do own a real tube amp (rack for that matter, totalling at 11 small + 4 big juicy valves
if you ask me, it blows Amplitube and Guitar Rig into pieces.
i hope that the video is not overprocessed, because if it sounds like this in real life, it matches up with revalver (except its not that much brand biased.. except for so many LOGIC brand amps, i never heard of those..j/k)
and yes, i do own a real tube amp (rack for that matter, totalling at 11 small + 4 big juicy valves
Hm, always DELL comparisons, how about an comparison with HP Z600 Workstations? These use Xeon 5500 CPUs even with the single CPU configuration and they do cost even more, you have to buy an graphics card also, as an Mac Pro single CPU which comes with the cheaper Xeon 3500 CPUs but at least with graphics card. The usage of DP Xeons might look useless, but the QPI of the 55xx CPUs is higher as of the 35xx.
Of course the HP doesn´t have Apple pixie dust nor fancy case, tho the Z600 interior design is clear also. The maxed out Z600 costs nearly $10.000 and the maxed out Mac Pro also will go about the $10.000 mark, tho the Z600 then has 24GB RAM while the Apple Store only offers up to 12GB then.
So viewed, the Mac Pro isn´t that overpriced at all. Compared with i7 consumer PCs it´s of course expensive while offering not much advantages over them, except a few details but sometimes details can make the difference.
Compared to 2008 MPs it still feels bad sometimes to buy an 2009 MP but that´s mostly INTELs fault because of the i7 consumer chip. And Apple then ends up with using i5 chips in the future for their consumer products, not i7, maybe. Then we have the same discussions why Apple using i5 instead of i7 and so on.
However, the thing with on-site service is really a deal breaker for some companies, IMO. Apple wants to be the "Rolls Royce" of computing, then why we have to wait 5-7 days for an replacement machine if one fails, especially considering the price of the Mac Pro? I know a few companies which would like to use Apple computers but they can´t afford an "in case" repair wait of 7 days while Dell or HP comes mostly the same day you call the support and repair or exchange the machine on site.
The onsite service issue is a major factor for us corporate mac fans. If we buy 80-100 mac pros, but cannot get same day on site service, this is a major factor. hence, we use PCs, and I have a mac for creative pursuits - it is not supported however.
It is hard to imagine apple breaking into corporate america like this... then again, they have done just fine without that. But it ultimately will limit market share, which still rounds off to zero compared to windows......
They offer X7400 series boxes on the upper side too so it's a full spectrum solution from gaming to game & film creation to scientific visualization and etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwtrO4ozqwk
Nope
AFAIK, I now want to invest in Dell.Personally I'm stoked about Final Cut; I was skimming through their pdf on it, and apparently that have new codecs such as 4444 (which I can imagine using) and 422 proxy (which I can imagine using when away from the desktop). Only problem; Intel processors. No way to use until my massive upgrade next year
Still, I would want a comparison between those R900s and other number-crunching machines
. I wonder.... I should head out to U of W sooner or later and find out what they're using in their supercomputing cluster.I also agree with TheSilencer! There's more than just Dell out there!
Indeed!
Ah, SGI, wherefore art thou? Such a great company, now a mere product line. I wonder what Intel could do with a 32nm R10k? It would put Itanium and Nehalem to shame, I'm sure.
i7 towers, 2.66GHz, 6-8GB memory, 1 Tb HD and Nvidia 200 or ATI 4000 series vid cards. Around $900.
The Mac Pro quad core 2.66GHz Xeon, 3GB memory, 640GB HD and Nvidia 120. $2,499. Unbelievably bad value.
The Mac Pro quad core 2.66GHz Xeon, 3GB memory, 640GB HD and Nvidia 120. $2,499.
Unbelievably bad value.True true. Thanks to nice retailers which allow to drop your faulty machine and instantly get an replacement or repair of them it´s not that bad but they can´t provide service for 100 machines usually.
I just imagine if you only have one machine and you wait then 7 days without an replacement. Another reason to own more than one machine.
I really don't intend to start a big debate here, but honestly, I have been using Windows 7 on my two PC's and it is seriously the nicest Windows OS I have EVER used. They attempted to ripoff OSX again, but did a much better job than with Vista, and also added some of their own features.
It seems stable, it's clutter free, aesthetically pleasing, and really looks like a solid competitor to at least maybe drive prices down. Running a W7 rig, with more memory, an equivalent processor, and saving at least 40% just seems like it would be too good of a deal. Apple needs to understand this, I really expect W7 to make a huge splash on the market.
Of course pre-builts will always have huge markups, most of them, but just do-it-yourself, cable mgmt is really not THAT hard.
Very surprised the Quad 2.66 only cost about $300. Wonder what the C2D costs? Perhaps $150 for the 2.26 MacBook processor. If yes, then Apple could offer a better computer across all price points. They could do away with the low end models, but they have us, at least me, trained to their product differentiation and their price jumps (of about $300) to move up to a better model. But with the Pros is bigger price jump of $500.
if you take out cost and say price you cannot express it any clearer. This is from the other thread on historical pricing. It is obvious that they have added some 800$ to their low end machine margin and 1300$ to the top model. That are impressive figures. I cannot believe for a moment that they had bad margins in 2008. So this really is overpricing from a customers point of view because they think they are in a unique position of inelastic demand.
I'm just going to make a hackintosh. I bought an iMac two years ago, which is nice, but I need more power so instead of spending $3,000 on a nice Mac Pro I can spend $1,000 and get the same, if not better, specs. No way I'd ever use Windows so I will install OS X instantly.
Is there any downside to doing this in terms of performance that would justify me spending $2000 more for a Mac Pro? (I know about the danger of the OS, I just want to know about performance).
Is there any downside to doing this in terms of performance that would justify me spending $2000 more for a Mac Pro? (I know about the danger of the OS, I just want to know about performance).
Nope, not from what I've been reading. It's all pretty straight forward with no hidden performance gotchas. It can do and does do whatever the components you select are capable of doing.
I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want a good alternative with the same base specs, the Sun Ultra 27 is a fraction of the cost and will produce the same results. Same CPUs as the MP Quad and allows for more RAM then the MP Quad (6 slots instead of 4).
http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra27/index.xml
Plus you can run any add ons you wont with out fear of EFI troubles. Though, if you want to run OS X - then thats a whole 'nother ball game.
http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra27/index.xml
Plus you can run any add ons you wont with out fear of EFI troubles. Though, if you want to run OS X - then thats a whole 'nother ball game.
It does seem a nice system, and the starting price isn't bad either.I have said it before and I will say it again. If you want a good alternative with the same base specs, the Sun Ultra 27 is a fraction of the cost and will produce the same results. Same CPUs as the MP Quad and allows for more RAM then the MP Quad (6 slots instead of 4).
http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra27/index.xml
Plus you can run any add ons you wont with out fear of EFI troubles. Though, if you want to run OS X - then thats a whole 'nother ball game.
It does seem a nice system, and the starting price isn't bad either.
yes it does seem nice, good price tag. im afraid that the 530W PSU in it is a tad under-powered
I hadn't paid much attention to the PSU (gave it really quick look).yes it does seem nice, good price tag. im afraid that the 530W PSU in it is a tad under-powered
It's OK for a base system (fairly bare), but add in a few items, such as a hungry graphics card and a RAID, it'd be close at best, if not short. And that's assuming the 530W is an RMS rating.
I've no idea if SGI has gone to using peak ratings or not on a system like this to shave costs, but I'd hope not.
I hadn't paid much attention to the PSU (gave it really quick look).
It's OK for a base system (fairly bare), but add in a few items, such as a hungry graphics card and a RAID, it'd be close at best, if not short. And that's assuming the 530W is an RMS rating.
I've no idea if SGI has gone to using peak ratings or not on a system like this to shave costs, but I'd hope not.
530W, 80% efficiency-doesnt say about the RMS. doesnt particularly seem that 'workstationy', great beginner workstation i guess. nice expandability kinda.