Because WWDC will never again see the surprise introduction of another CPU. Remember the introduction of the first G5? Or the long anticipation and speculation about the then rumored 970MP? And about what features might be included in the 980 and 990, and how soon we might see them? No more of that. We know what processors are going to be available and what their features are. The only question will be, as far as the CPU is concerned, is whether Apple is keeping up with everyone else or not.sbrage2000 said:I think he meant Intel-ization, meaning converting Mac processors to Intel. I don't know how that affects WWDC's prestige either
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.
Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What A Crock
For another thing, the unveiling of many of Leopard's features along with a shipping target quarter is what most of us are really watching WWDC for - not hardware announcements. While new hardware is always interesting and fun, it's not the primary thing about WWDC.
Anyone remember how understated Apple announced the Quad G5 last October in New York City? The Quad G5 is probably one of the most significant pieces of hardware Apple has ever shipped. And yet it was incredibly understated in its premiere. So there is really no coorelation between how Apple releases new hardware and how important that release may be.
Pardon my French David, but that is simply horse manure. The WWDC is about software not hardware. It's about how to write software for the current or next system depending on the year. I don't think our knowing what processors Intel is shipping will help us know how Apple is going to implement those processors into their lines. I think there is plenty of drama and anticipation for the August 7 Steve&CompanyNote regardless of wiether we know a Quad Woody will be revealed there or not.DavidCar said:
For another thing, the unveiling of many of Leopard's features along with a shipping target quarter is what most of us are really watching WWDC for - not hardware announcements. While new hardware is always interesting and fun, it's not the primary thing about WWDC.
Anyone remember how understated Apple announced the Quad G5 last October in New York City? The Quad G5 is probably one of the most significant pieces of hardware Apple has ever shipped. And yet it was incredibly understated in its premiere. So there is really no coorelation between how Apple releases new hardware and how important that release may be.
Let me rephrase myself. I think that is where they are going. I know they don't have that technology til the quadcore chip comes out. They might start off with all models quadcored, just with different speed increments. Then, they would add the octcore as the top-o-the-liner.Multimedia said:
Leopard Driven Oct Core Mac Pro With Final Cut Studio 6 Premiere April 15-16 NAB
Perhaps. But I believe if Oct Core is doable at the same time Quad Core Processors ship - IE a Woody class Dual Socket capable Quad Core - that Apple will put it on top right away, which I think will be in Spring 2007, probably on Monday April 16 at NAB along with Final Cut Studio 6. Perhaps they will even hold a press conference for it on Sunday Evening Aptil 15.gilgalad101 said:
I'm planning on buying a new MacIntel desktop when they arrive b/c my Old Faithful 1.25 GHz PPC7455 really can't cut the mustard any longer... either the mid or high-end machine. So I love speculating about this I have heard some of the rumors, but here's what I am wondering... Currently we have these models (with CPU/FSB):
$3300 PPC 970MP @ 2.50x2 GHz/1250x2 MHz
$2500 PPC 970MP @ 2.33 GHz/1150 MHz
$2000 PPC 970MP @ 2.00 GHz/1000 MHz
and at one point we even had the 2.7 GHz/1350 MHz cpu/bus combination. Now my understanding of what we will have available as of early August (CPU clock, FSB, L2 cache):
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5150 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5140 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5130 2.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB*
Xeon 5120 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5110 1.60 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6700 2.66 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E6300 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E4200 1.60 GHz/800 MHz/2 MB
(* This and below don't support Intel's Enhanced SpeedStep (demand-based switching).)
Assuming that 2 rumors are true:
1) That Woodcrest is bascally the same cores as Conroe, but with the ability to operate in an MP environment (i.e., you will never see a Conroe quad), and
2) that Apple is somehow managing to wedge 2 Xeons into the high-end Quad tower
...then along with the above Core 2 Duo/Extreme expectations, wouldn't it only be common sense to have an all Xeon Mac Pro lineup, with the dual 5160 (quad core) leading the pack at 3 GHz? At the WORST I would imagine the lowest-end machine has the 1066 MHz bus...?? I mean, I can certainly understand a lineup like:
$3300 Xeon 5160 @ 3.00x2 GHz/1333x2 MHz
$2500 Xeon 5150 @ 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz
$2000 Xeon 5140 @ 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz
But if Apple opts not to use that 3 Ghz 5160, then what can we expect to get?? I shudder to think they will do something like:
Xeon 5150 2.66x2 GHz/1333 MHz
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz
How *lame* of an advance would that be from the current models? Apple would essentially be saying "Congratulations, that mid-range machine you were buying went All The Way from 2.33 to 2.4 GHz!! But, we had to cut your bus from 1150 to 1066 MHz. Sucks to be you." It may not be so tragic for the low-end machine, but still... a crappy, crappy step fwd if Apple does not use all Xeons, I think... Unless Apple has cooked up some scheme to do increased FSB speeds? Maybe it's just that I'm hoping for an all 64-bit -> all 64-bit move on Apple's part (the Xeons are 64-bit and the Conroes 32, aren't they??). Or that I'm praying for a mid-range Xeon 5150 running at 2.66 GHz because then the 3.0 Quad really would be overkill for me. But if they top out at a ~2.7 GHz quad, I'll probably end up forking over an extra $800 for it to get what I need...
I have heard some of the rumors, but here's what I am wondering... Currently we have these models (with CPU/FSB):$3300 PPC 970MP @ 2.50x2 GHz/1250x2 MHz
$2500 PPC 970MP @ 2.33 GHz/1150 MHz
$2000 PPC 970MP @ 2.00 GHz/1000 MHz
and at one point we even had the 2.7 GHz/1350 MHz cpu/bus combination. Now my understanding of what we will have available as of early August (CPU clock, FSB, L2 cache):
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5150 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5140 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5130 2.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB*
Xeon 5120 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5110 1.60 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6700 2.66 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E6300 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E4200 1.60 GHz/800 MHz/2 MB
(* This and below don't support Intel's Enhanced SpeedStep (demand-based switching).)
Assuming that 2 rumors are true:
1) That Woodcrest is bascally the same cores as Conroe, but with the ability to operate in an MP environment (i.e., you will never see a Conroe quad), and
2) that Apple is somehow managing to wedge 2 Xeons into the high-end Quad tower
...then along with the above Core 2 Duo/Extreme expectations, wouldn't it only be common sense to have an all Xeon Mac Pro lineup, with the dual 5160 (quad core) leading the pack at 3 GHz? At the WORST I would imagine the lowest-end machine has the 1066 MHz bus...?? I mean, I can certainly understand a lineup like:
$3300 Xeon 5160 @ 3.00x2 GHz/1333x2 MHz
$2500 Xeon 5150 @ 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz
$2000 Xeon 5140 @ 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz
But if Apple opts not to use that 3 Ghz 5160, then what can we expect to get?? I shudder to think they will do something like:
Xeon 5150 2.66x2 GHz/1333 MHz
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz
How *lame* of an advance would that be from the current models? Apple would essentially be saying "Congratulations, that mid-range machine you were buying went All The Way from 2.33 to 2.4 GHz!! But, we had to cut your bus from 1150 to 1066 MHz. Sucks to be you." It may not be so tragic for the low-end machine, but still... a crappy, crappy step fwd if Apple does not use all Xeons, I think... Unless Apple has cooked up some scheme to do increased FSB speeds? Maybe it's just that I'm hoping for an all 64-bit -> all 64-bit move on Apple's part (the Xeons are 64-bit and the Conroes 32, aren't they??). Or that I'm praying for a mid-range Xeon 5150 running at 2.66 GHz because then the 3.0 Quad really would be overkill for me. But if they top out at a ~2.7 GHz quad, I'll probably end up forking over an extra $800 for it to get what I need...
3GHz Woody On Top, 2.93GHz Middle & 2.4GHz Bottom Conroe
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB x 2 QUAD Top
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Mid
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Bottom
There's no reason to sell single Woody systems. Everything I've read indicates minimal difference between Woodies and Conroes except the dual socket capability of Woodies. And there are a lot of other expenses associated with Woody processors that Apple won't want to unnecessarily spend. Sure the bus is a little slower than today's PPCs. But I think that won't be the bottleneck you imagine with much faster processor architecture - I hope.
Conroes are 64-bit. The main diff is they can't run as a pair to make Quads. So I think your expectations are probably a little shy of what they probably will-should do which is:crypto7 said:I'm planning on buying a new MacIntel desktop when they arrive b/c my Old Faithful 1.25 GHz PPC7455 really can't cut the mustard any longer... either the mid or high-end machine. So I love speculating about this
$3300 PPC 970MP @ 2.50x2 GHz/1250x2 MHz
$2500 PPC 970MP @ 2.33 GHz/1150 MHz
$2000 PPC 970MP @ 2.00 GHz/1000 MHz
and at one point we even had the 2.7 GHz/1350 MHz cpu/bus combination. Now my understanding of what we will have available as of early August (CPU clock, FSB, L2 cache):
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5150 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5140 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5130 2.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB*
Xeon 5120 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Xeon 5110 1.60 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6700 2.66 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E6300 1.86 GHz/1066 MHz/2 MB
Core2D E4200 1.60 GHz/800 MHz/2 MB
(* This and below don't support Intel's Enhanced SpeedStep (demand-based switching).)
Assuming that 2 rumors are true:
1) That Woodcrest is bascally the same cores as Conroe, but with the ability to operate in an MP environment (i.e., you will never see a Conroe quad), and
2) that Apple is somehow managing to wedge 2 Xeons into the high-end Quad tower
...then along with the above Core 2 Duo/Extreme expectations, wouldn't it only be common sense to have an all Xeon Mac Pro lineup, with the dual 5160 (quad core) leading the pack at 3 GHz? At the WORST I would imagine the lowest-end machine has the 1066 MHz bus...?? I mean, I can certainly understand a lineup like:
$3300 Xeon 5160 @ 3.00x2 GHz/1333x2 MHz
$2500 Xeon 5150 @ 2.66 GHz/1333 MHz
$2000 Xeon 5140 @ 2.33 GHz/1333 MHz
But if Apple opts not to use that 3 Ghz 5160, then what can we expect to get?? I shudder to think they will do something like:
Xeon 5150 2.66x2 GHz/1333 MHz
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz
Core2D E6400 2.13 GHz/1066 MHz
How *lame* of an advance would that be from the current models? Apple would essentially be saying "Congratulations, that mid-range machine you were buying went All The Way from 2.33 to 2.4 GHz!! But, we had to cut your bus from 1150 to 1066 MHz. Sucks to be you." It may not be so tragic for the low-end machine, but still... a crappy, crappy step fwd if Apple does not use all Xeons, I think... Unless Apple has cooked up some scheme to do increased FSB speeds? Maybe it's just that I'm hoping for an all 64-bit -> all 64-bit move on Apple's part (the Xeons are 64-bit and the Conroes 32, aren't they??). Or that I'm praying for a mid-range Xeon 5150 running at 2.66 GHz because then the 3.0 Quad really would be overkill for me. But if they top out at a ~2.7 GHz quad, I'll probably end up forking over an extra $800 for it to get what I need...
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB x 2 QUAD Top
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Mid
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Bottom
There's no reason to sell single Woody systems. Everything I've read indicates minimal difference between Woodies and Conroes except the dual socket capability of Woodies. And there are a lot of other expenses associated with Woody processors that Apple won't want to unnecessarily spend. Sure the bus is a little slower than today's PPCs. But I think that won't be the bottleneck you imagine with much faster processor architecture - I hope.
crypto7 said:
Not sure what you use your Mac for, but you could also buy the G5x4 if you need major power--it's a great machine, makes video and audio processing much faster. If you can wait you could get one during prices reductions after the intelPMac introduction. Depending on how long you typically go between upgrades the OS would probably stay current for a couple more years.
Oh, believe me I was VERY close to buying a G5. Especially after seeing how obviously superior the PPC970 was (is? don't see any 5100 series yet...) at vector ops (http://www.top500.org).
besides the debate on processors. this seems to be a popular thread to just ponder any possible changes with the Macpro.
what kind of video card will it possibly have. dual-dual link dvi in all?
audio card.
superdrive changes?
of course it could be difficult to determine, but if you guys know what the possible pipeline will be for processors, what about other junk inside the Mac pro box?
what kind of video card will it possibly have. dual-dual link dvi in all?
audio card.
superdrive changes?
of course it could be difficult to determine, but if you guys know what the possible pipeline will be for processors, what about other junk inside the Mac pro box?
treysmay said:
First, I'm thinking Apple might split the 'Power Mac' into two segments, even if they use the same chassis. One 'pro's pro' model that uses dual Woodcrest processors (making it a quad core,) and one 'low-end pro' or 'high end consumer' that uses a single Conroe (possibly even Conroe Extreme,) making it just dual-core.
Dual-dual DVI on all Woodcrest models, dual+single DVI on all Conroes, with paid upgrade to dual-dual. I'm guessing that SLI (two video cards working together as one to drive a single monitor to get extra speed,) will be an option on the highest-end Conroe. (IF nVidia and/or ATI bless SLI on an Intel chipset. Up until now, both of them only bless SLI on their own chipsets.)
Integrated 'Intel HD' audio on all models. No paid upgrade available.
SuperDrive will be at least 16x +/- R, 8x +R DL, 6x -R DL (even if Apple doesn't advertise the -R DL capability,) and possibly -RAM capability, too. (If it does have -RAM, Apple won't advertise it.)
Possible (50%) that the highest-end Woodcrest model will have Blu-Ray. If it does, then all models will have Blu-Ray as a paid upgrade. If it doesn't come standard, then 25% that the Woodcrest models will have Blu-Ray ONLY as a paid upgrade, not standard at all; and not available, even as an upgrade, on the Conroe models. If no Blu-Ray this time, then guaranteed for the next rev.
BlueRay or HD-DVD Options. Dual 5.25" External Bays. Love The Current Design.
I am also one of the almost 27% who voted to keep the same case. Not likely. I don't expect to ever sell my G5 PPC Quad. I love it. I think the current Quad is a masterpiece of engineering excellence in all respects. All G5 Quad owners here know what I mean.
I'm one waiting for the 8 core with Leopard Inside next Spring. So it's all just observiation rather than shopping for me. Although I do hope this first Intel Quad presents some impressive performance gains over what we have now, I have my doubts it will be as much faster as I think I need over the G5 Quad. Hope I'm wrong though.
I hope they go with an ATI Dual Dual Link solution with 256MB or more of ram. I also hope they offer BlueRay AND HD-DVD BTO options above the fastest DL they can get this summer stock. Dual Ethernet maybe the newer 10 Gigabit Ethernet would be there. We can only guess. I would love two external 5.25" optical or removable media bays.treysmay said:
I am also one of the almost 27% who voted to keep the same case. Not likely. I don't expect to ever sell my G5 PPC Quad. I love it. I think the current Quad is a masterpiece of engineering excellence in all respects. All G5 Quad owners here know what I mean.
I'm one waiting for the 8 core with Leopard Inside next Spring. So it's all just observiation rather than shopping for me. Although I do hope this first Intel Quad presents some impressive performance gains over what we have now, I have my doubts it will be as much faster as I think I need over the G5 Quad. Hope I'm wrong though.
crypto7 said:
I'm sorry, but it's just plain retarded. You are comparing G5 to a Woodcrest, and ONLY thing you are doing is to look at the raw MHz of the two CPU's?!?!? Two TOTALLY different architectures, and all you care is the Mhz? Since when did the MHz determine how fast the CPU is? Is 2GHz Athlon64 slower than 2.2Ghz Celeron? By your logic, it must be!
"But we also doubled the amount of L2-cache, cut down on power-consumption, gave the system a metric assload of memory-expansion, beefed up the floating-point and increased memory-bandwidth."
Besides, I bet that ALL PowerMacs will be quads (I'm thinking 2x 5130, 2x 5140 and 2x 5160). Raw Mhz might not increase that much (the hi-end would be at 3GHz), but every system would have 4 processors, and they would be faster, clock-for-clock.
No. At this point I think it's safe to say that you are way out of your element here. You basically made up some "specs" for hypotethical PowerMac, and then proceeded to tell everyone how bad those specs are. I think that qualifies as a strawman-argument.
Multimedia said:
Nope. First of all, PowerMacs are workstations. It would be lunacy to ship dual-core workstations, when your competitors (Dell) are shipping quads. And besides, using two different chips (Woodcrest & Conroe) on a single lineup of machines is not smart. Apple ALWAYS tries to maximise synergies (Mini was basically recycled iBook/eMac, Apple-remote is basically iPod shuffle with different internals etc.). Splitting up your workstations between two different CPU's would be bad for synergies. They might (and hopefully will) release an additional line of Workstations that run on Conroe, but PowerMac will be all Woodcrest.
Mark my words: Every PowerMac will be a quad.
It's a bit slower. But the difference is neglible. And Woodcrest has twice as much L2-cache than G5 has, so that help in bus-utilization quite a bit. And Woodcrest has advanced prefetch-mechanism that also reduce the load on the FSB.
Evangelion said:
If that is the case, I wonder if Apple will release something Conroe-based to bridge the gap between the bottom end Mac Pro and the iMac. It seems that there is a large number of people (at least here) interested in such a beast. Either a large mini form factor or small Powermac form factor perhaps.
Anyone interested?
-Squire
AidenShaw said:Here's a Woody mobo you can buy today:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/5000P/X7DB8+.cfm
64 GiB RAM
Just think, all that advanced technology & capapbilities, and they STILL insist on including a friggin floppy drive controller.......what a waste of silicon
Not me personally, but I know millions would be if the price & specs were close to a PC Conroe tower.Squire said:
For years people have had the perception Macs cost more, but the MacBook has proved that that isn't always the case. Never mind cost over a period of time, I mean purchasing cost, (i.e. perceived cost to end consumer), which is still a little more, but much better. If they could bang out a few towers for those buying standard biege boxes or gaming machines, they could capture much more market share.
I know for a fact if there was a semi-customisable Mac tower that would allow the OSX environment for work and Windows purely for gaming, it would sell. It also encourages people to look at a standard tower, comparing to a PC of same price/spec and realise after a small discussion with others/salespeople that perhaps a MacBook or Mac Mini would be better suited for their needs. They save money, get what they need and save on space.
Squire said:
I have made a prediction on these forums that Apple will announce a new line of Pro-machines besides the PowerMac
. The form-factor would be either a minitower (propably) or pizzabox (unlikely). Differences between the new machine (MacPro Mini?) and the current lineup (MacPro?) would be:MacPro Mini
1x Conroe
1x PCI-E 16x
2x PCI-E 8x
2x HD-Bays
MacPro
2x Woodcrest
2x PCI-E 16x
3-4x PCI-E 8x
4x HD-bays
You know it makes sense
. MacPro Mini could start from $1499 (2.4GHz Conroe) and end at around $1999 (2.66GHz Conroe). MacPro would start at $2499 (2x 2Ghz Woodcrest). through $2999 (2x 2.33Ghz Woodcrest) to $3499 (2x 3GHz Woodcrest).
This is what I'm expecting (or rather: hoping).
New Intel Microarchitecture!
Intel has promised the fastest rollout in its history for the new Xeon 5100 microarchitecture.
These are screaming fast 64-bit chips that beat AMD hands down.
Watch for this to replace the problematic Core Duo by year's end!
Intel has promised the fastest rollout in its history for the new Xeon 5100 microarchitecture.
These are screaming fast 64-bit chips that beat AMD hands down.
Watch for this to replace the problematic Core Duo by year's end!
chatin said:Intel has promised the fastest rollout in its history for the new Xeon 5100 microarchitecture.
These are screaming fast 64-bit chips that beat AMD hands down.
Watch for this to replace the problematic Core Duo by year's end!
Um, Xeon 5100 has already been released, with products using it on their way. So this isn't really news. And what's so "problematic" with Core Duo's?
Multimedia said:
Oh yes there is.
The apple presents itself to media and stockholders, not for us mere maggots.
It can decide to launch quad in a obscure manner,because,honestly,apart from the 50.000 potential buyers/yr,nobody gives rats ass about it. It wont affect the stock or it wont fill the pages of gizmo mags.
But apple can not skimp on the the launch of some other core areas, say,software or iPod , because they are what affects apple the most media wise.
It was something like that i was after in my rant.
Before the intel era, apple had a element of suprise,sex and mystery in the computer launches,as David Car pointed out.
Now,with this Intellisation, the mystery is removed due the know specs of the systems, and thus much of the market value with it.
Not that it puts us Macturbators down that much.
Multimedia said:Conroes are 64-bit. The main diff is they can't run as a pair to make Quads. So I think your expectations are probably a little shy of what they probably will-should do which is:
Xeon 5160 3.00 GHz/1333 MHz/4 MB x 2 QUAD Top
Core2E X6800 2.93 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Mid
Core2D E6600 2.40 GHz/1066 MHz/4 MB Dual Bottom
There's no reason to sell single Woody systems. Everything I've read indicates minimal difference between Woodies and Conroes except the dual socket capability of Woodies. And there are a lot of other expenses associated with Woody processors that Apple won't want to unnecessarily spend. Sure the bus is a little slower than today's PPCs. But I think that won't be the bottleneck you imagine with much faster processor architecture - I hope.
Not happening with the Conroe X6800 IMHO.
Why? the processor costs a TON! In fact, they'd be better off just sticking the Xeon 5160 in there- it's cheaper!
Still, you did mention in a post above that you think they'll go to octo in around April. I think we may see that sooner- Clovertown, the quad-core MCM of woodcrest, is slated to debut around the end of the year, and have a MP capable version. Tigerton as well is not supposed to be very far off in the distance (Q1 2007 if memory serves). So I think the odds are at least close to even that we'll have an Octo before April.
thank you "Ehurtley" and "multimedia" you are very helpful. I had purchased the Ibook in my Sig. just before the intel switch because I knew it would be a while for the Mac pro's, but I am going to school for media arts, and this thing makes my soul hurt, 'it's so F'''ing slow". I use CS2 and Studio MX, FCE and I have 3k waiting for this Mac Pro, I'm just itching --Itching--.
Rant over.
Rant over.