Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?

[milo]

Thanks Milo, once again you just show me your ignorance and lack of taking the time to read posts before commenting on them.

I not going to repeat what I have said before to explain to you my issue with Evangelion. so I suggest you go back and read it. Maybe if you do so you will once and for all get it.
I am doing that in respect of MacRumors readers.

Again, you have no substance and rely on ad hominem comments.

Evangelion has NEVER said that adobe users should switch to different apps ("ditch adobe apps" as you put it) or run adobe apps under rosetta.

It's very easy to prove me wrong, just quote the post where he supposedly said this. Note that I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I've been through your repeated comments where you completely misunderstand both him and me.

Here's your chance to prove that you really do have a clue. Quote me the post. If you fail to do so, I consider that an admission that you've been wrong (I assume you'll try to cover with some pathetic cop-out like "I am doing that in respect of MacRumors readers."). Do us all a favor and put this issue to rest once and for all.

 

[gugy]

you must be Evangelion roommate.

If you were a smart individual, just go to the first replies I had from Evangelion and you will see that what I meant before. If you still not satisfy, then is your problem.
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove my point to you. You need to find something better to do than just interfere on a argument between me and Evangelion.
I can see for your other posts that I am not the only individual here being attacked by your ignorance. keep your good job Milo!🙄

 

[milo]

you must be Evangelion roommate.

If you were a smart individual, just go to the first replies I had from Evangelion and you will see that what I meant before. If you still not satisfy, then is your problem.
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove my point to you. You need to find something better to do than just interfere on a argument between me and Evangelion.
I can see for your other posts that I am not the only individual here being attacked by your ignorance. keep your good job Milo!🙄

As expected, the pathetic cop out.

If he really said that in his first replies, you could simply quote it and shut me up. So where's the quote?

You failed to deliver. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[gugy]

here we go:
just go back to posts 54, 55, 57 and 59.
If you still have hard time understanding the argument between me and Evangelion, then I suggest you going back to school and learn something.

 

[milo]

here we go:
just go back to posts 54, 55, 57 and 59.

So let's look at those.

Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.

Does that say that adobe users should switch to different software? No.

A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?

You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.

Again, does that say that adobe users should switch to different software? No.

So you've shown it once and for all, he never said what you keep insisting he said, thanks for clearing that up.

Did you even read post 209? Where he said the exact OPPOSITE of what you insist he said? Let's look.

I don't care one bit about apps that can substityute Adobe's apps. What I did say that there's already tons of universal pro-apps out there. Not everyone lives and breathes Adobe.

And I'm talking about those who do not rely on Adobe. They do exist.

Where exactly have I said that they should switch to some other app? Hell, where have I said that they should buy the MacPro?

He flatly denied everything you tried to put in his mouth. And after all that you still insist that he was saying that "he believes that we can ditch Adobe apps for other ones".

Again, thanks for the post numbers, they clearly show that you've been putting words in people's mouths all along.

 

[gugy]

here a quote from evangelion:
"why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well."
My answer, there are not for creative professionals. Unless you want to settle for something less. THIS IS THE CORE ARGUMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ME.

ok, why the obsession with Adobe apps? for a good reason. most of the creative pro's that will use Pro Mac make a living with Adobe apps. period!
Evangelion says he doesn't care about Adobe. good for him, but the creative industry does and the Pro Mac is mostly used by pro creative people.

So in my first post I said that many creative people would take the time to switch until Adobe is universal and Evangelion just did not agree.

If you do not need Adobe and want to switch or want to use Rossetta, be my guest. go and buy the Pro Mac.

Do I have to be more clear for you Milo?

 

[milo]

here a quote from evangelion:
"why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well."
My answer, there are not for creative professionals. Unless you want to settle for something less. THIS IS THE CORE ARGUMENT BETWEEN HIM AND ME.

And he tried to clear up that you were missing the point.

When he says "There are other apps out there as well" he means that there are people running other apps, particularly people who aren't working with graphics at all! He said multiple times that he didn't mean that adobe users should switch apps, his point is that not every mac user uses adobe.

Which is absolutely true. While there are many people doing graphics on macs, there are many doing other things for a living (and those people want intel towers ASAP and will buy plenty of them). For example, people doing music and audio with apps like Logic (one of those "other apps out there").

Not every person running a mac is doing graphics, that's the point I've been making all along. So do you get it yet?

 

[gugy]

keep reading the following posts between him and me and hopefully you will get it.

 

[milo]

keep reading the following posts between him and me and hopefully you will get it.

I think you mean keep pretending to read thing that aren't there.

The posts you pointed to as well as the following ones make it perfectly clear.

 

[gugy]

What can I do if you can't see it?
The answer is there, but you want to refuse to see it.
Well, then good for you.

 

[milo]

That's a hoot, you say I can't see it, but really you're making assumptions and reading things that aren't there.

Keep up the good work, buddy. You're obviously enjoying your denial.

 

[gugy]

hahaha,
same for you buddy!

 

[milo]

hahaha,
same for you buddy!

Have a good weekend. I'll let your posts speak for themselves, you've made it perfectly clear that you've been putting words in people's mouths all along.

Thanks.

 

[gugy]

Exactly,posts speak for themselves and hopefully the readers of this forum will make that distinction instead of having you trying to be the the "voice of truth" behind all the posts.

 

[Silentwave]

COOL IT!

now that that's over, i'm loving the latest rumored specs....Woodcrest....with DDR2 SDRAM. 🙄 Honestly if you're gonna make up specs at least pick the right kind 🙂

 

[Multimedia]

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I don't see why we need all this name calling and complaining. In only 3 weeks from Monday, we'll know what's what and the old G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac out there with plenty of horsepower to deal with PPC only as well as Universal Apps. So can we all not have a cow over who can piss further than the other guy during this time of precongnition please? 😉

 

[THX1139]

Well, you could try this...

http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12

It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!😀

Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.

Thanks but it's not going to work for me. I have to stay combatible with all of my clients and they use Photoshop. I didn't look at the details of the software, but I doubt you would be able to open it in Photoshop and preserve layers and effects. The only think that comes close is Fireworks, and it still jacks things up. However, for general purpose in-house stuff, it's worth a look.

 

[THX1139]

You know this does not make sense, don't you?

Print houses and such are very lazy to upgrade anything at all, so now that they know there's a big transition coming, they're STOCKPILING current computers if they see that they need to buy some during the next year or two. Why? Because they fear the change. They'd rather upgrade now and sit tight until the transition is complete, and then upgrade again once somebody else has tried if it works or not. They're not the ones who would be first in line to buy new Intel macs. And that's why they most certainly are not the ones who would be buying Intel pc's as long as they are able to choose.

It is very common to skip every other software version. Many print houses and freelancers have been very satisfied with the Adobe CS2 software and have no difficulties whatsoever in sticking with it until CS4 comes out; and when it comes in roughly 2009, they most certainly have no difficulties in buying new systems as they have been saving lots of money in the waiting game.

Uh... yeah, but the original argument was that the new Quad Woodcrests wouldn't sell that well because graphics people and print houses rely on Adobe products that aren't universal yet. You are coming in during the middle of the conversation and putting a different spin on it and thus taking my post out of context. I stand by my original post... that professionals will hesitate to buy Intel until Adobe releases CS3. Milo and the dozen or so other power-users out there (Logic etc.) will of course jump on the new machines. The MAJORITY who need Quad power will take a wait and see approach.

 

[Multimedia]

8 Cores With Leopard Are Less Than 8 Months Away

Uh... yeah, but the original argument was that the new Quad Woodcrests wouldn't sell that well because graphics people and print houses rely on Adobe products that aren't universal yet. You are coming in during the middle of the conversation and putting a different spin on it and thus taking my post out of context. I stand by my original post... that professionals will hesitate to buy Intel until Adobe releases CS3. Milo and the dozen or so other power-users out there (Logic etc.) will of course jump on the new machines. The MAJORITY who need Quad power will take a wait and see approach.

Also, we know that in less than a year we will be able to buy 8 core Mac Pros that will include Leopard and MacIntel bug fixes. G5 Quads are enough power to get us to Octs in little more than half a year more. And there is also the issue of wanting to keep the last G5 Quad as a backup system for whatever Intel Mac Pro system we aquire so that in any negative event with the newer system, we will have a tried and true G5 system to fall back on.

 

[gugy]

Uh... yeah, but the original argument was that the new Quad Woodcrests wouldn't sell that well because graphics people and print houses rely on Adobe products that aren't universal yet. You are coming in during the middle of the conversation and putting a different spin on it and thus taking my post out of context. I stand by my original post... that professionals will hesitate to buy Intel until Adobe releases CS3. Milo and the dozen or so other power-users out there (Logic etc.) will of course jump on the new machines. The MAJORITY who need Quad power will take a wait and see approach.

Very true.
That's why when I heard that Adobe would only be universal with CS3 and After Effects 8, I was so relieved for buying my Quad G5 last October. Plus, I would rather wait for Revision B of the Mac Pro to make sure the Hardware is more stable and the universal software mostly bug free.

But I know will be hard at WWDC to see the new hardware and have to wait to switch. Probably it will be very nice stuff. So, I just hope to see Adobe and others launch their universal apps very soon so to take full advantage of these machines.

 

[Manic Mouse]

I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.

You'll forgive me if I don't particularly care whether you think I know what I'm talking about, since it seems you don't know how to read or write. I never said Conroe was faster than Merom per Mhz. I said it was faster, full stop. In other words Conroe: 2.4Ghz-2.93Ghz whereas Merom has a max speed of 2.33Ghz. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that?

Um, it's basically the same chip.

What's you point? Does that make my statement that Conroes are faster, better value for money and more competitive any less true?

I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.

I see you completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out that it costs $100 less for Apple to buy a 2.4Ghz conroe than a 2.13Ghz Merom. Now if they can put Conroe into the iMac, even if it requires a new MoBo, it simply makes no sense not to. The cost of designing a new MoBo they'll easily make up by saving money on Conroes.

I really don't understand what kind of planet a lot of you live on: Conroe is faster and cheaper than Merom. If it's possible for Apple to put a Conroe in the iMac (ie: it isn't too hot) then why on earth wouldn't they?

And on the new MoBo:

More work = higher price.

And apple will be saving, literally, $100's per iMac by using Conroes rather than Meroms. They would also, presumably, sell better because they're more powerful. Why would you ignore that fact?

Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.

I'm sorry, but what year do you live in? 512Mb RAM in a "premium" computer is certainly not competitive. Maybe in 2003.

you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).

As a consumer the only thing that matters to me is performance.

Is having a lower thermal output worth having slower and more expensive processors? To me it isnt'.

What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.

Are you trying to tell me that in a desktop computer Merom is a better choice than Conroe? It's slower, it's more expensive and it's cooler. Now I don't really care how hot my processors run because it doesn't affect me. However I do care how fast my processors are and how much my computer costs both of which Conroe does better than Merom.

You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.

I don't really mind that Macs are more expensive. However I do want the best value for money I can get in a Mac. For a desktop Conroe is cheaper than Merom, as well as being a more powerful processor.

You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.

I honestly am starting to think many of you have reading problems. My point isn't just that "Conroe is faster", but also that it is CHEAPER than Merom. A heck of a lot cheaper. Therefore if it is possible for Apple to put a Conroe in an iMac case then why would Apple or consumers want Merom?

It makes perfect sense. If it isn't possible to get a Conroe in an iMac case (and only Apple know that) then go with Merom. If not then Conroe since being cooler is the one and only advantage Merom offers, whereas Conroe is cheaper and faster.

How does that not make sense?

 

[Eidorian]

I see you completely ignored the part of my post where I pointed out that it costs $100 less for Apple to buy a 2.4Ghz conroe than a 2.13Ghz Merom. Now if they can put Conroe into the iMac, even if it requires a new MoBo, it simply makes no sense not to. The cost of designing a new MoBo they'll easily make up by saving money on Conroes.

I really don't understand what kind of planet a lot of you live on: Conroe is faster and cheaper than Merom. If it's possible for Apple to put a Conroe in the iMac (ie: it isn't too hot) then why on earth wouldn't they?

And on the new MoBo:



And apple will be saving, literally, $100's per iMac by using Conroes rather than Meroms. They would also, presumably, sell better because they're more powerful. Why would you ignore that fact?



I'm sorry, but what year do you live in? 512Mb RAM in a "premium" computer is certainly not competitive. Maybe in 2003.



As a consumer the only thing that matters to me is performance.

Is having a lower thermal output worth having slower and more expensive processors? To me it isnt'.



Are you trying to tell me that in a desktop computer Merom is a better choice than Conroe? It's slower, it's more expensive and it's cooler. Now I don't really care how hot my processors run because it doesn't affect me. However I do care how fast my processors are and how much my computer costs both of which Conroe does better than Merom.



I don't really mind that Macs are more expensive. However I do want the best value for money I can get in a Mac. For a desktop Conroe is cheaper than Merom, as well as being a more powerful processor.



I honestly am starting to think many of you have reading problems. My point isn't just that "Conroe is faster", but also that it is CHEAPER than Merom. A heck of a lot cheaper. Therefore if it is possible for Apple to put a Conroe in an iMac case then why would Apple or consumers want Merom?

I know that Conroe is cheaper per MHz/performance then Merom. If it meets the thermal limitations of the iMac and doesn't relive the Rev. A/B iMac G5 then Apple should use Conroe.

I don't really expect Apple to be doing 100% of it's R&D to fit chips into their current designs. I remember the rumors that Intel was at least designing the motherboard for the Intel Power Mac.

Where's my reading problem?

 

[Manic Mouse]

I know that Conroe is cheaper per MHz/performance then Merom. If it meets the thermal limitations of the iMac and doesn't relive the Rev. A/B iMac G5 then Apple should use Conroe.

I don't really expect Apple to be doing 100% of it's R&D to fit chips into their current designs. I remember the rumors that Intel was at least designing the motherboard for the Intel Power Mac.

Where's my reading problem?

I've been saying exactly what you've said above from the start. If you agree then what was the problem? 😛

 

[Eidorian]

I've been saying exactly what you've said above from the start. If you agree then what was the problem? 😛

You seemed to make I point that I didn't get that Merom is just a more expensive and slower verision of Conroe due to thermal constraints. If Apple can put a Conroe in an iMac without making it a space heater I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

I just don't want to relive my iMac G5 Rev. B. It was loud and hot. The Rev. C and beyond was a drastic change to the iMac's internals. Maybe we'll know next Tuesday? 😀

 

[Manic Mouse]

You seemed to make I point that I didn't get that Merom is just a more expensive and slower verision of Conroe due to thermal constraints. If Apple can put a Conroe in an iMac without making it a space heater I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

I just don't want to relive my iMac G5 Rev. B. It was loud and hot. The Rev. C and beyond was a drastic change to the iMac's internals. Maybe we'll know next Tuesday? 😀

We'll have to wait and see. I'll be ordering a Conroe iMac as soon as they become available, if they become available. They would absolutely fly, with 2Gb of RAM and a 500Gb HD added for good measure. 😛