Mac Pro (Early 2008) Notes and Options

[mixel]

I was just thinking last night ... maybe these new Mac Pros '8 Cores and all', are really 'blow out sales' of the casings and components to make way for a radical new machine at WWDC? Apple has done this before ... several times with the end of a line model. Load them up at amazing prices and get them out of the doors fast. Just a thought ....

I've been thinking the same, but in reality im having trouble trying to think of anything they could radically change..

Other than a different casing, all the next upgrade could possibly be is another 15-20% speed boost again..? Nehalem can't make that much difference, its still "only" a 8cpu platform, and.. Well, no point waiting on a case redesign if the only improvements are possible blu-ray and a tiny speed bump.. ? Or would the speed bump be bigger. I have no idea.

 

[Macinposh]

I am NOT forcing anyone to buy a second computer.. sheesh. And it's give people a 'break' not a 'brake'.

Yeah, people can use their workstations to play games. I think I mentioned that some people do that, but it's idiotic to assume that buying a mac pro means it will be great for games. All I see here is people complain about a weak graphics card - that just blows me away.

And quit the ridiculous analogy.. seriously. And how the bloody hell was my post hypocritical? I posted what I do. I clearly mentioned that I am NOT a gamer. Read first, then attack.

Your post doesnt leave that much to be misunderstood on. And now you are picking on non-native english speakers on their spelling. What next?

I was mostly criticizing on the current atmosphere of "MP shouldnt be used for gaming" that is quite common on this forum,just read this or other threads on MP section. That has been a long standing attitude,wich propably comes from the non existant gaming culture of the mac world. We havent had that much stuff to game on.
But I personally see that this is a small reach out from apples behalf.

The last launch of games was a sad,sad happening.
Most people remembers stevo telling how much good stuff the macists are gonna get. EA launching titles and stuff. They just forgot to tell that the macintosh platform practically cant run any of them properly...
The new iMacs fiasco when updating the gfx card was a prime example : The updated card run slower on many titles than the card it replaced.
Let alone could it run any of the new releases on native resolutions with AA with decent speeds.

Now apple at least can try to convince the game publishers/spec conscious customers that the have some kind of setup capable of running modern games.

And that is the next group of clients apple now can attract that previously was unreachable :Youngish PCist,gaming,tinkering,males.
When they mature,they are going to be the ultimate customers. Familymen in the forefront of technology buying stuff for their homes and businesses.

They sure as hell are gonna benefit apple.
And maybe us other clients too by keeping apple prosperous.

My 0.2€.

If there was a lot of faulty writing,feel free to correct them,Music Producer.

 

[Tallest Skil]

" Unable to enter the requested store."

Go here: http://developer.apple.com/membership/usa.html and click on ADC Hardware Purchase Program Store. You can't get to the ADC Store straight off unless you're logged in and a Developer.

 

[Eric Piercey]

Correction... if you aren't a gamer .or say anyone who needs the beefy GPU for any of a multitude of reasons besides gaming. Believe it or not there are people in the world who use monster video cards for things other than gaming. Aperture, for example, is highly GPU dependent. Motion is another. Video people, animators, engineers all need and use a bigger card. It irks me when people tell me what I need. Technically nobody NEEDS as Mac Pro or anything created on one. Technically nobody "needs" cars, or hell even electricity. I'm all for saving the planet. Seriously, I really am. But don't mess with my video card, especially when it concerns Apple's already tenuous grasp of what pro's need as far as GPU.

I believe the ati graphics card is ok:

1. it is super energy efficient (remember climate change?)
2. if you are not a gamer, you don't need anything more, so for most pro activities this card is more than enough.




________________________________________________________________
http://www.projectmanagement-training.net

 

[CaddDood]

Ok, do you think my CONFIGURE NOW Mac Pro I just ordered will do the job for me? I just need to type emails to my friend in Jacksonville and want to make sure I have enough power to do so...


Summary

Subtotal $23,197.00
Estimated Ship:
3-5 weeks
Free Shipping
Next business day delivery available

Specifications

Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
32GB (8 x 4GB)
300GB 15,000-rpm SAS
300GB 15,000-rpm SAS
300GB 15,000-rpm SAS
300GB 15,000-rpm SAS
NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB (Stereo 3D, two dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Two 16x SuperDrives
AirPort Extreme card (Wi-Fi)
Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X

No good.... The SAS drives require the RAID card option.

 

[Cuyahoga]

I'm sick of people guilt-tripping members for getting a Mac Pro when they'd end up paying the same amount of money for a top-end iMac or MBP. You don't hear people playing the "spoiled little brat" card on iMac users who play games.

I fail to see how the $2299 Mac Pro is a bad deal for people who enjoy games--at least when compared to Apple's other options. I understand you can get an equally capable machine in terms of gaming for $1500, but let's assume that you *must* be able to run OS X (legally).

Say you aren't making a living on Logic or FCP, should you pay the same price (or more) to get a MBP/iMac just because you aren't a "professional"? I don't understand the resentment of many professionals here; I may not be using all cores as much as you are, but that doesn't mean I should throw logic to the wind in making a $2K decision.

 

[Umbongo]

I am reasonably sure that Apple pays different prices than the ones on that price list, otherwise the MacPro prices don't make sense. The 2.8GHz chip was around $800; if Apple paid that then out of the $2799 that you pay for the standard configuration $1600 would go straight to Intel. Doesn't make sense, especially since Apple wants to make a bit of profit, and the dealer wants to make a bit of profit as well.

Apple will definatly not be paying the $797 price per processor. I don't know how many Mac Pros they sell, I don't think anyone outside of Apple does, but it is surely enough to drive those purchase prices down; especially as I imagine that the vast majority of Mac Pros will ship with them rather than the other processors. I would think nearly everything else in there is also cheaper now, from the logicboard to power supply which will help in all parties making profit from each sale. Though I don't think it is intended to be a cash cow by itself, but rather in conjuction with pro software and helping with Apple's image in various industries.

 

[sshrivastava]

The writing is on the wall

Folks, this is NOT the only update to Mac Pro that will happen in 2008. The "Mac Pro (Early 2008)" designation by Apple is a clear sign that there will be more Mac Pro updates this year, either to faster Harpertown processors (up to 4 GHz) or a change-over to the Nehalem architecture.

Those who need a Mac Pro now should certainly buy, but if this is a vanity purchase (as it is for some), plunking down over $5,000 today on a computer that will be updated again in 6-8 months with significantly faster processors or an entirely new architecture is going to sting. We are still waiting for updated Cinema Displays w/ built-in iSight, the inclusion of Blu-ray Disc, updating of CS3 apps to work properly under Leopard, and a migration to SSE4 by software developers. I believe we are due for a mid-year confluence of redesigned Mac Pros with matching Cinema Displays, Blu-ray disc option, and SSE4-enabled software. The Mac Pro released yesterday is meant to hold us over to the redesigned Mac Pro later this year, and will also give Apple time to sell-off inventory of Cinema Displays.

I was tempted to pull the trigger on a new Mac Pro today, as I am on the G5 dual 2.5 GHz model, but it's not the right time. Adobe CS3 apps don't work properly under Leopard, which would make the new Mac Pro just introduced virtually useless to many, and if I have to wait on Adobe I might as well wait until Apple releases the mid year update.

All of that notwithstanding, I'm glad they updated it -- it couldn't have waited another 6 months.

 

[Umbongo]

I'm sick of people guilt-tripping members for getting a Mac Pro when they'd end up paying the same amount of money for a top-end iMac or MBP. You don't hear people playing the "spoiled little brat" card on iMac users who play games.

I fail to see how the $2299 Mac Pro is a bad deal for people who enjoy games--at least when compared to Apple's other options. I understand you can get an equally capable machine in terms of gaming for $1500, but let's assume that you *must* be able to run OS X (legally).

Say you aren't making a living on Logic or FCP, should you pay the same price (or more) to get a MBP/iMac just because you aren't a "professional"? I don't understand the resentment of many professionals here; I may not be using all cores as much as you are, but that doesn't mean I should throw logic to the wind in making a $2K decision.

I think alot of it comes from people seeing that the Mac Pro isn't great value for money if gaming is the main focus ($1500 effectivly on a processor and motherboard that can be had for <$400 on a windows platform with some simple overclocking). However i think alot of them miss that spending this extra money to have a system from Apple that runs OSX isn't an issue for many considering it. The problem that disussion on the subject then has is it is all focused on telling someone that it isn't great value rather than presenting the other side.

 

[Cuyahoga]

Just to illustrate my point, here are some configurations to ponder:

$2,618 24" iMac: 2.8Ghz, 2GB, 750GB, HD2600 256MB, AppleCare
$3,248 15" MBP: 2.6Ghz, 2GB, 250GB, 8600mGT 256MB, AppleCare
$2,748 MP: 2.8Ghz Quad, 2GB, 320GB, 8800GT 512MB, AppleCare

Here's where I stand as a consumer:
-I already have a new 24" display
-I have several external HD's (which I could use as is, or insert into MP)
-I'd like a separate drive for Windows (read Mac Pro only)
-I have a cheap Dell laptop for roadwork; this computer is staying put
-I'd like to use Logic with more than 4 tracks
-I'd like to play Bioshock and some unforeseen game 3 years from now
-I'd like to be able to buy a new GPU, additional HD's, new CPU years from now
-When I screw up code in Mathematica, I'd like it not to take 30 minutes of 100% CPU usage before an error pops up

So, which do you think I'd choose?

 

[Reach]

Folks, this is NOT the only update to Mac Pro that will happen in 2008. The "Mac Pro (Early 2008)" designation by Apple is a clear sign that there will be more Mac Pro updates this year, either to faster Harpertown processors (up to 4 GHz) or a change-over to the Nehalem architecture.

Those who need a Mac Pro now should certainly buy, but if this is a vanity purchase (as it is for some), plunking down over $5,000 today on a computer that will be updated again in 6-8 months with significantly faster processors or an entirely new architecture is going to sting. We are still waiting for updated Cinema Displays w/ built-in iSight, the inclusion of Blu-ray Disc, updating of CS3 apps to work properly under Leopard, and a migration to SSE4 by software developers. I believe we are due for a mid-year confluence of redesigned Mac Pros with matching Cinema Displays, Blu-ray disc option, and SSE4-enabled software. The Mac Pro released yesterday is meant to hold us over to the redesigned Mac Pro later this year, and will also give Apple time to sell-off inventory of Cinema Displays.

I was tempted to pull the trigger on a new Mac Pro today, as I am on the G5 dual 2.5 GHz model, but it's not the right time. Adobe CS3 apps don't work properly under Leopard, which would make the new Mac Pro just introduced virtually useless to many, and if I have to wait on Adobe I might as well wait until Apple releases the mid year update.

All of that notwithstanding, I'm glad they updated it -- it couldn't have waited another 6 months.

SHUT UP!!! I'm on a Dual 2,5 G5 myself, and was just about to pull the trigger when you, damn you, made me think a little more..

This is basically the best thing out there though? Do we KNOW wether a new version in 6 months is really going to amount to that much of a difference..? The updates thus far have only been pretty minor when it comes to performance..

And I don't care about iSight in the displays.. Is there any reason to wait for updates to the Cinema Displays aside from that?

 

[Reach]

Just to illustrate my point, here are some configurations to ponder:

$2,618 24" iMac: 2.8Ghz, 2GB, 750GB, HD2600 256MB, AppleCare
$3,248 15" MBP: 2.6Ghz, 2GB, 250GB, 8600mGT 256MB, AppleCare
$2,748 MP: 2.8Ghz Quad, 2GB, 320GB, 8800GT 512MB, AppleCare

Here's where I stand as a consumer:
-I already have a new 24" display
-I have several external HD's (which I could use as is, or insert into MP)
-I'd like a separate drive for Windows (read Mac Pro only)
-I have a cheap Dell laptop for roadwork; this computer is staying put
-I'd like to use Logic with more than 4 tracks
-I'd like to play Bioshock and some unforeseen game 3 years from now
-I'd like to be able to buy a new GPU, additional HD's, new CPU years from now
-When I screw up code in Mathematica, I'd like it not to take 30 minutes of 100% CPU usage before an error pops up

So, which do you think I'd choose?

lol So subtle. I guess some people can't see much further than their noses when they are unable to realize that there are people with these kind of needs.

 

[Cuyahoga]

The problem that disussion on the subject then has is it is all focused on telling someone that it isn't great value rather than presenting the other side.

True. And this is a rumor site, so I suppose it's fine to discuss hypothetical alternatives.

I just don't see the merit in criticizing people for buying a Mac Pro when there isn't (and most likely never will be) a suitable Apple alternative. This is a Mac forum, so I assume everyone here wants a computer that'll run OS X. And I also assume that people recognize having a separate computer *just* for gaming is much more excessive (and expensive (and ridiculous)) than getting a Mac Pro. Perhaps I'm assuming too much.

 

[Roy]

SHUT UP!!! I'm on a Dual 2,5 G5 myself, and was just about to pull the trigger when you, damn you, made me think a little more..

This is basically the best thing out there though? Do we KNOW wether a new version in 6 months is really going to amount to that much of a difference..? The updates thus far have only been pretty minor when it comes to performance..

And I don't care about iSight in the displays.. Is there any reason to wait for updates to the Cinema Displays aside from that?

You should be singing "Bang! Bang! I Shot You Down!".

To help you out with some more information, I hear that the Mac Pro Ultimate will be coming out in 2012 and will make the current Mac Pros look like the original Apple IIe. So, start saving your pennies. Oh, by the way, it will sell for $999 loaded. You heard it first here on Macrumors.

 

[sshrivastava]

SHUT UP!!! I'm on a Dual 2,5 G5 myself, and was just about to pull the trigger when you, damn you, made me think a little more..

This is basically the best thing out there though? Do we KNOW wether a new version in 6 months is really going to amount to that much of a difference..? The updates thus far have only been pretty minor when it comes to performance..

And I don't care about iSight in the displays.. Is there any reason to wait for updates to the Cinema Displays aside from that?

Nobody knows what the future holds, but the name "Mac Pro (Early 2008)" does definitely raise my eyebrows. The fact that there are a few other things that need to happen as well, I see an opportunity for some sort of convergence later this year.

But then of course, if Apple does redesign the Mac Pro later this year, it will be a Rev. A and because of problems with Rev. A products you'll have to wait another 6-8 months before a Rev. B with the kinks worked out... bwahahaha!

Seriously, though, my G5 dual 2.5 GHz can handle everything I throw at it -- I don't do 3D modeling, sound or video editing, etc. I was a graphic designer previously to getting into real estate, and now I just need my machine to handle my real estate stuff as well as putting together some great printed market materials -- my G5 is great for all of that, but I want to update it to Intel so I don't face obsolescence. For myself, now is not the right time to buy a Mac Pro when I can reasonably assume a better one will come along in 6-8 months while the one I have is working just fine without any application issues.

Whoever buys this new Mac Pro just introduced will, undoubtedly, have the fastest Mac and best Xeon machine out there today.

 

[Macinposh]

...updating of CS3 apps to work properly under Leopard, and a migration to SSE4 by software developers....Adobe CS3 apps don't work properly under Leopard, which would make the new Mac Pro just introduced virtually useless to many, and if I have to wait on Adobe I might as well wait until Apple releases the mid year update....

I would not rely on the CS 3 update.

Adobes 18 month product cycle has been running for who-knows-how long and I personally dont believe that changing for the foreseable future. So expected CS 4 is about 12 months away.Apparently the whole code has to be rewritten,and there is speculation if even the CS4 will alleviate the multithreading issues.So it may take up to 40 months until the CS are sorted for proper multithreading.

But,some kind of Leopard update,yes,hopefully! The whole suite is in quite sad shape at the moment..

 

[Reach]

You should be singing "Bang! Bang! I Shot You Down!".

To help you out with some more information, I hear that the Mac Pro Ultimate will be coming out in 2012 and will make the current Mac Pros look like the original Apple IIe. So, start saving your pennies. Oh, by the way, it will sell for $999 loaded. You heard it first here on Macrumors.

hehe Calm down, I AM able to pull the trigger, just holding a couple days. Just bought a MBP and Canon XHA1, so just doing some more calculations..

Still the XHA1 is the best reason for getting the MP now, as HD-stuff in Motion is close to undoable on this 2x2,5G5 with 5gb ram and 6800 Ultra gfx-card.

And BTW; CS3 works just fine for me in Leopard.. Using InDesign, PS, DW and Flash mostly. What problems are you people having..?

 

[Redneck1089]

Well, the thing is that Mac Pro is not meant for gaming. Sure, some people might buy one and use it primarily for just that. But that does not change the fact that it's not designed for that task. It's a workstation, and it's designed for workstation-workloads. And that does not include gaming.

you say that not including a better vid-card is a "stupid-ass" decision. to use a car-analogy, it was a stupid-ass decision by Ferrari when they didn't include a towball and a huge trunk to their latest sportscar.



That's nice. And because of that, Apple should design their _workstations_ with gamers in mind?



These GPU's that Apple offer are suitable for the intended workloads Mac Pro has been designed for. They might not be suitable for some other workloads, but that's 100% irrelevant.



Mac Pro's are not meant for gaming, therefore it's pointless to whine about lack of gaming-related functionality in Mac Pro's.



And for many people who buy Mac Pro's, it is.

They are not meant for gaming because they lack one essential component, and that's a decent GPU. The problem with your dumb car analogy is that Ferrari makes sports cars--cars that go faster when they are smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic than other cars. They have a physical and justifiable reason not to include bigger trunks and tow balls, and that's because if they did it would slow the car down.

With the Mac Pro the only thing that really does prevent it from being a monster gaming rig is a decent GPU. Yet, there's no real reason for Apple not to offer better GPU's; GPU's don't slow the computer down or increase the size of the machine. They do allow the computer to do even more things, however, and therefore make it a better and more practical addition to the computer.

How else is the Mac Pro not meant for gaming? It's basically the perfect machine--it's incredibly expandable, and is extremely fast and powerful. Sure it's expensive, but not really all that much more than a "true" gaming computer, like some Alienware systems. The only thing holding it back is their GPU options. Why is there this problem? It's stupid. It doesn't slow anything down by adding a more powerful GPU (in fact, it speeds it up in some cases), and it increases the overall functionality of the computer.

Basically all I got from your entire post was the same sentence over and over again: "Mac Pro's are not meant for gaming." So, here's the thing I find kind of ironic coming from an Apple fanboy: you're here, basically implying that if you need a Mac Pro for work but also want to play games on it you should buy two computers--one to work on and one to play on. Don't see the irony yet? Apple is all about increasing the functionality of their products to do more and more things! Take the iPhone for example; it's a phone, an iPod, an internet browser, and a whole bunch of other things rolled into one so you don't have to carry more than one gadget in your pocket. That's the appeal of it: it does everything. Now why can't Apple take that approach with their computers? Is it really that big of a deal to offer a few more GPU options to customers who want to use their Mac Pro's for everything?

Are you someone against choice? I personally, and I think most people here, are all for choice. We want the ability to do whatever we'd like to our machines to increase performance in whatever area we want. What is wrong with that?

 

[THX1139]

I am still suprised people care what these things look like. They are a box (very well designed) to put computer bits in, nothing else. I am sure you would find most Mac pro's stuck under a desk.

Who cares...

Actually, I care. I take mine out and play with it all the time. Now and then it can get a little dirty, so you have to clean it. But other than that, just have the dust blown off and your good to go.

 

[Eric Piercey]

SHUT UP!!! I'm on a Dual 2,5 G5 myself, and was just about to pull the trigger when you, damn you, made me think a little more..

This is basically the best thing out there though? Do we KNOW wether a new version in 6 months is really going to amount to that much of a difference..? The updates thus far have only been pretty minor when it comes to performance..

And I don't care about iSight in the displays.. Is there any reason to wait for updates to the Cinema Displays aside from that?

Oh I'm right there with ya. I'm a professional videographer and use my dual 2.0 G5 like a beat up old mule. It's still doing the job, and with Tiger on it quite well. My main consideration is render times. At peak season I may have 200 5 minute video segments to render from DV over to MP2 for DVD and all of those clients want their DVD's delivered yesterday. It would be a huge boon for me to have an 8 core machine at the center of all that. My productivity would easily double. Then there's the other 5 months of the year where my machine is just sitting there more often than not. I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to guess there's a lot of us low volume or part time pro's already saddled with debt from other capital (cameras, monitors, output cards, blank media, cables, storage, RAM, hardware cases, memory cards, software upgrades, etc etc ad nauseum) who really want to pull the harpertown trigger, but are struggling with the cost/benefit. For the money, they're a great buy though and chances are about 98% I'll purchase one within the month if not today. My considerations are as follows:

1. There will be another upgrade(s) to the MP this year, if not Nehalem, which I'd guess we're looking at Sept at the earliest, then simply better video card choices. Bluray I could care less about but it would be a nice perk.

2. It's not just a matter of paying for the MP, it's paying for the MP on top of everything else. My G5 does work. It's relatively slow, but it does. The upgrade would improve my quality of life a great deal though. No more babysitting renders until 2am. Better realtime previewing of my video. Slots for adding serious output cards for HD playback. (I'm currently SD) But then I'll want that output card/device and a prosumer HD camera which is another 3-4k. And I'll want a HD display with HDMI if not SDI or both. All this stuff does hit me hard to the point where every $ I make is spent paying of my gear.

3. Oh and then there's the 3-5 weeks for delivery. In that time there will be a considerable amount of feedback both from Apple on 1/15 and user who've received their new MP's (albeit users with the ATI cards.)



I'm just babbling I realize and not making a point - but oh man I've got it in the shopping cart now.

I also do play PC games and my old PC is outdated and crappy. I'd be running EQ2 on this badboy as well.

 

[sshrivastava]

hehe Calm down, I AM able to pull the trigger, just holding a couple days. Just bought a MBP and Canon XHA1, so just doing some more calculations..

Still the XHA1 is the best reason for getting the MP now, as HD-stuff in Motion is close to undoable on this 2x2,5G5 with 5gb ram and 6800 Ultra gfx-card.

And BTW; CS3 works just fine for me in Leopard.. Using InDesign, PS, DW and Flash mostly. What problems are you people having..?

I had some serious issues with Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator CS3 under Leopard on my PowerMac G5 -- they would unexpectedly quit immediately upon launch. After some research I found out that others were having the same issues related to Leopard, that Acrobat 8 doesn't work at all, and that Adobe said it would not update CS3 to full Leopard compatibility until early 2008. I don't know if it's happened yet, but since we just clocked into January I assumed it hadn't yet. I also was unable to successfully print to the Adobe Acrobat driver, which is incremental to a lot of my workflow.

I'm glad those apps are working for you, but for me they just crashed and burned even after a clean Leopard OS installation. Now I'm happily chugging along after downgrading back to Tiger and CS2, and will hold off on any Mac Pro purchases until Adobe and Apple can sort out this whole Leopard thing. There is a SERIOUS need for Apple to create competitive versions of these applications and make them cross-platform to give us an alternative to Adobe. If Adobe pulls the plug on Mac development, or just stops caring (some will argue it's already stopped caring), then the Mac Pro will be relegated to running a handful of Apple pro applications and otherwise being nothing more than a status symbol among Mac people.

It is possible that the Intel build of Leopard doesn't have as many issues with itself or Adobe applications -- the Mac Mini which I purchased recently to run my phone server under Linux virtualization seems to be better at running Leopard than my dual G5. That really surprised me.

By the way, the Mac Mini makes for a fantastic VOIP PBX server using Linux virtualization and free, open source solutions. Check out PBX in a Flash. I can now run my business from home, have all the calling features I could ever want or need, and all for under 1¢ per minute!

 

[avkills]

Adobe CS3

I am using CS3 on my G5 under Leopard also; Photoshop and AfterEffects for the most part are solid. There are some text entry fields that are hosey in PS, but for the most part they work fine.

-mark

 

[Reach]

I had some serious issues with Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator CS3 under Leopard on my PowerMac G5 -- they would unexpectedly quit immediately upon launch. After some research I found out that others were having the same issues related to Leopard, that Acrobat 8 doesn't work at all, and that Adobe said it would not update CS3 to full Leopard compatibility until early 2008. I don't know if it's happened yet, but since we just clocked into January I assumed it hadn't yet. I also was unable to successfully print to the Adobe Acrobat driver, which is incremental to a lot of my workflow.

I'm glad those apps are working for you, but for me they just crashed and burned even after a clean Leopard OS installation. Now I'm happily chugging along after downgrading back to Tiger and CS2, and will hold off on any Mac Pro purchases until Adobe and Apple can sort out this whole Leopard thing. There is a SERIOUS need for Apple to create competitive versions of these applications and make them cross-platform to give us an alternative to Adobe. If Adobe pulls the plug on Mac development, or just stops caring (some will argue it's already stopped caring), then the Mac Pro will be relegated to running a handful of Apple pro applications and otherwise being nothing more than a status symbol among Mac people.

It is possible that the Intel build of Leopard doesn't have as many issues with itself or Adobe applications -- the Mac Mini which I purchased recently to run my phone server under Linux virtualization seems to be better at running Leopard than my dual G5. That really surprised me.

By the way, the Mac Mini makes for a fantastic VOIP PBX server using Linux virtualization and free, open source solutions. Check out PBX in a Flash. I can now run my business from home, have all the calling features I could ever want or need, and all for under 1¢ per minute!

Sorry to hear that, CS3 is indispensable for me, so I'm very glad it works. And it works great on both my Intel- and PowerPC-leopards, as I use both my MBP and PM a lot for those applications.

 

[Jimmdean]

Basically all I got from your entire post was the same sentence over and over again: "Mac Pro's are not meant for gaming." So, here's the thing I find kind of ironic coming from an Apple fanboy: you're here, basically implying that if you need a Mac Pro for work but also want to play games on it you should buy two computers--one to work on and one to play on. Don't see the irony yet? Apple is all about increasing the functionality of their products to do more and more things! Take the iPhone for example; it's a phone, an iPod, an internet browser, and a whole bunch of other things rolled into one so you don't have to carry more than one gadget in your pocket. That's the appeal of it: it does everything. Now why can't Apple take that approach with their computers? Is it really that big of a deal to offer a few more GPU options to customers who want to use their Mac Pro's for everything?

Are you someone against choice? I personally, and I think most people here, are all for choice. We want the ability to do whatever we'd like to our machines to increase performance in whatever area we want. What is wrong with that?

...says the person who doesn't run their own computer company. Keep in mind whatever option they offer you now they have to be able to support/replace/repair for at least the next 3 years. It's suitable for them to offer some options, but not a ton (and certainly nothing that would necessitate different cooling or power options. I feel this go-around they did a pretty good job in their pics. As for being an all-around machine, the Mac Pro will never be one - this is a professional workstation and it thinks games are for kiddies... (if you have one just ask it!!!)

ps. I'm sure you're aware, but you can put whatever card in there you want - just don't run Mac OS...

 

[sshrivastava]

I am using CS3 on my G5 under Leopard also; Photoshop and AfterEffects for the most part are solid. There are some text entry fields that are hosey in PS, but for the most part they work fine.

-mark

Considering that my PowerMac G5 dual 2.5 GHz (liquid cooled) recently leaked all of its coolant and fried my power supply and blew both G5 processors, I wouldn't mind upgrading to a faster system that didn't have liquid coursing through its veins. Fortunately for me, Apple paid for the out-of-warranty repair totaling over $1,200 -- thank you Apple!

To those who are running CS3 on Leopard/Intel, everything is okay then?