Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'll be the first to say it: I'd be really happy with an i7 Baby Mac Pro, if it actually brought the cost of a Mac Pro down to $2000.

Typed on iPhone.
1st, have nit been feeling well so I'm unsure if I posted this here. The main gist of this response is Applemhas painted themself intomancorner with some products, example, Air, very prcey with a lack ofvfeaturea yet sue to prcing scheme, no net book.
I see this as the perfect timing of moving the top of line to 12/24 cores and use current cores as the mid range product to target prosumers, gamers, Pros, video, audio Prosumer and pros for studio b and c rooms while making it affordable nselling millions whilemat the same time, no more gap in their product line.

Snip
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac
I've said it before and will say it again. Only adding a few different elements to the mix.
With Apples pricing, they sort of painted themseleves into a corner. Example mac air thus no netbook due to high price.

Now Avid makes about 98% off all tv/ feature films we see as they make editing equipment. Their sister company, Digidesign, makes high end audio systems.
Avid can run around $100,000k, pro tools anywhere from $5000 to $50k depending in your needs. A few years ago though, they saw the trend that computers were getting faster and people were not buying pro tools tdm which are basically cards that take the load off the CPU as even high end top 10 artists wrrevrecording at home and mixing only in the studio, so Avid BOUGHT OUT M-AUDIO as this is a pro-Sumer company. All the software runs native unless you have say a fx pci card or express slot card with FX (same for video and people were livid apple took it off the 15", in fact most were hoping to see a 13 MacBook pro with express so that could slide in gig back, record shows, ideas.

Now. With this new chip. This is apples chance to raise the prive a little and realease the 4/8 cores as headlesss mid range. Not only will they get millions of prosumer audio users that make up a bulk of the market. They would get gamers that make more sales than video and music combined.

If you have a good, great gaming machine by Apple, you also have a device that will run their Pro Apps and oddly, Apple assumes they will lose money as the Pros, 2~3%, would buy the cheaper alternative, and their right, we would but so woudnt the gamers (who make up more sales then video sales and music sales combined), as well as the millions of ProSumers who don't really have the cash for a server made desktop but do have the talent, not to mention all the studios that had mac pros would also buy these non existent devices for their smaller rooms. In a nutshell, Apple would MAKE money not lose money due to lack of sales but they can't seem to figure that out yet.*

Avid/Digidesing did!!!! They saw people were no longer buying their $$10,000 TDM (processing chips in a card, thus reducing CPU latency which you cannot have in music), and saw computers were getting faster and faster and more core on a single dye were happening, so they purchased M-Audio which relies on the cpu only. In music it's caled native recording vs TDM. In fact, for the mac pro, for those left with the express slot, now only the 17" has it forces yet higher prices on the pro, with an express card, you can purchase something similar that puts all the processing on the card that goes into the express slot. Google. "UAD laptop express" card and you'll see what I mean. Apple could make more money simply by adding an express slot on the iMac. Add in esata and the sales go even higher. *

Anyway, Apple can do it but won't as I said earlier great grahics normally mean it can run pro apps and they don't really want that and rather have you buy the mac pro when in fact they would make so much more anyway.*

Check it out. Let's pretend apple released a $1000 i7 core with a great graphics card, 1000 FSB, normal memory, headless and in the future you could swap the CPU out. *
You would have thousands of gamers buy them.*
You would have millions of musicians buy them and buy their own ram after market, similar to gamers.*
You would have everyone that is tired of windows but has nice HDMI DVI diplays buy them.*
You would have the more semi pro photographer buy them. *
You would have most all semi pro video users buy these.*
And ironically, all the pros apple were afraid they would lose sale to, would buy these instead of the pc rendering farms as well as place them in their smaller studios, so it not a matter of how come, it more like their are misguided somehow. I mean they really only care about the iPhone now, example, One to One and Pro C are used to be one program. Now it's seperated and most of the training used to be pro apps, and is now iLife and $99 each. So why not go ahead and build them. *There is a huge market out there. The only problem I would see is people would want their own video card at new egg or Frys pricing and apple would have to start supporting numerous cards but all the companies are gone and there's only nvidia and ati, so that wouldn't be that big of a deal and it would for sure, put a dent in the hacntosh.

There are millions of users waiting. Just take a page from what digidesign did.*
They would have 20% of the marketshare within a year and to top it off, it would increase the sales of iMacs as business and enterprise started off with these mid range machines. 30% in less than 5 years. Is it really so hard to understand Apple?


Peace all.*
[\QUOTE]I would buy this machine in s heartbeat! Great post!
 
Now Avid makes about 98% off all tv/ feature films we see as they make editing equipment. Their sister company, Digidesign, makes high end audio systems.
Avid can run around $100,000k, pro tools anywhere from $5000 to $50k depending in your needs.


Actually no.

First,it depends a lot on the market area. In us,if I remember right,FCP is starting to own about 40% of the market at the moment.
Around here,on this side of the pond,avid holding about 5% of the market...
Same percentage applies to music studios..
 
Those are large server application CPUs. Totally inappropriate for consumer PCs. Sparc is dead anyway, for all intents and purposes. Fujitsu will hang on for a few more years. But it will go the way of the DEC Alpha. To the graveyard of great server cpus that couldn't survive in the marketplace. :(

Add another not-so-great cpu to the list; read something to the effect that Itanium's days are numbered. That wouldn't be news I suppose, but more like an asterisk.
 
If those ports are important to you, why not get a cheap PC with them and network it to the Mac? Being here I presume there are Mac features and benefits you need as well.

I'm not sure about you, but I work with my Mac, don't just stare at it. When I started using them ~20 years ago it was because I fell in love with them. I could do MORE, more EASILY, Macs had SUPERIOR technology in most cases and didn't cost as much as they do now.

You are rationalizing the issue at hand. There is no compelling reason to buy a Mac Pro other than the OS and their limited expandability. Apple has fine tuned a hardware model called SYNC (screw your needs customer, pay a lot more for little more) Mac mini which has had no redesign in how long? Dell just proved they can do better for far less money, iMac (the least evil, if it suffices) and Mac Pro. Far cheaper Hackintoshes have proven more expandable and just as fast as the Mac Pro. Again, the only compelling reason is the OS.

I am very critical of Apple in these forums because I love the Mac, I am resentful however for what they have become. As users and fans we are obligated to keep Apple in check. As good as the Mac OS is, it does not justify paying so much more. I recently upgraded a friend to Snow Leopard and was shocked to see they have yet to fix some of the simple Finder bugs since they released Leopard. Apple has gotten fat and lazy when it comes to the Mac, you must admit.
 
Well that sucks, the Cell has some huge potential.

Yeah. Like GaAs, diagonal routing, and polyimide dielectric. It was all potential and never went anywhere other than some specialized uses. And you can't make money in non-x86 desktop-voltage processors anymore. SPARC or itanium will be the next to go. PowerPC has another decade depending on whether the game console makers realize they need to return to (or visit for the first time) x86.
 
You must have misunderstood the comment. guzhogi was merely pointing out that iMacs support multiple monitors.

I didn't misunderstand, but guzhogi missed the point.

Bubba said "I have a monitor, and don't want a glossy monitor".

Guzhogi's comment about dual-head didn't address Bubba's complaint, unless as I said, you could get an Imac without the monitor.

The series....


Breaking news.

Lots of people already have nice monitors and don't want to look at a mirror when they are using a computer.

Breaking news:

You can get a new iMac & still use your old monitor with it, & it would show something else! Macs have been able to use multiple screens for years now, even before the Intel transition. If you already knew that, I'm sorry.

I didn't realize that you could buy an Imac without paying for a monitor that you might not need or want....

;)


You cherry-picked the single benchmark that showed a performance degradation with HT. Every other benchmark in the article shows HT performing better than non-HT:

Honestly, I didn't "cherry-pick", although it does look like it. ;) I saw that the first one was a counter-example to your statement that HT seldom slows things down. Had I been cherry-picking, it would have been silly to include the link to the full article.

The apps that the article shows are highly multi-threaded, and therefore obvious candidates for an HT boost. Didn't I say that I'd turn HT on for workloads like that?

My distaste for HT comes from the fact that I do a lot of system benchmarking for my job - serious stuff like TPC-C, Exchange, 3-tier web apps,.... HT works well when the system is loaded to the max.

Where it falls down is under lighter loads. The performance drops slightly, but the standard deviation of the results increases dramatically.
 
They don't. We've already been through this, on here and AI as well.

Look, I've worked on Gone In 60 Seconds, Feeling Minnesota, Get Shorty, Everybody Love Raymond, Clueless, The Crimson Rivers, Mullholland Falls,Erin Brokovich, and that;s about 10% of what I've worked on, every one of those were edited on Avid, Todd AO studios.

The other thing is that if you look for work, you're going to find that FCP editors needed are no to low pay, low budget, sure, you can name a few big movies, so can I, a friend of mine is the Foley Manager for No Country For Old Men, all done on FCP, but a majority is still done in Avid.

Now if you go to NBC, Bravo, HBO, you will find FCP systems, but these editors will be doing bumpers "coming up next on ...." and not feature film or the high end jobs. Go look at Mandy or Craigs list, find more then 50% that are FCP editors needed that pay full union rate and not low to deferred.

Avid has a hold on the higher end budget films and tv.

But Avid is smart, like I was saying, Avid bought M-Audio as they know that NATIVE processing is coming on strong, they also bought Pinnacle systems, the point I keep trying to make is, this is the PERFECT timing for Apple to release the 12/24 Mac Pros as are and the 4/8 cores as a mid range, finally releasing a machine for the ProSumer market that ranges from Gamers to Enthusiast to Musicians and Editors. Apple doesn't have a product for this group yet, then need to and this is the perfect timing, regardless of what you or someone else calls market share.

Native processing is coming up strong but apple still doesn't have a NATIVE system for the PROsumer user. Period. Even the iMac with 4 chips have no express slot for added power. They need to release a Mid Range machine.
They will make more, not let money.
 
I am very critical of Apple in these forums because I love the Mac, I am resentful however for what they have become. As users and fans we are obligated to keep Apple in check. As good as the Mac OS is, it does not justify paying so much more. I recently upgraded a friend to Snow Leopard and was shocked to see they have yet to fix some of the simple Finder bugs since they released Leopard. Apple has gotten fat and lazy when it comes to the Mac, you must admit.

This has been my experience also. Snow Leopard caused HUGE headaches in my office. As the economy tightens our belts, many people, including myself, look at more affordable hardware, and that means the windows world.

But I absolutely cannot stand Windows Vista. Windows 7 would have to be significantly improved to make me even consider switching. I'd need some time to spend with Windows 7 trying to do actual work, but I don't even want to invest in a copy to run on my MacBook Pro. If I hate it, that's a few hundred down the drain- which I can put towards the not-insignificant price difference of a mac machine.

And the thing is, when it comes to the dual-multi core Xeon machines, Apple is a little better about being competitive. Even if their graphics cards aren't good for games, I don't care.
 
This has been my experience also. Snow Leopard caused HUGE headaches in my office. As the economy tightens our belts, many people, including myself, look at more affordable hardware, and that means the windows world.

But I absolutely cannot stand Windows Vista. Windows 7 would have to be significantly improved to make me even consider switching. I'd need some time to spend with Windows 7 trying to do actual work, but I don't even want to invest in a copy to run on my MacBook Pro. If I hate it, that's a few hundred down the drain- which I can put towards the not-insignificant price difference of a mac machine.

And the thing is, when it comes to the dual-multi core Xeon machines, Apple is a little better about being competitive. Even if their graphics cards aren't good for games, I don't care.
Firstly, do not be an early adopter of software in a production environment, EVER!

Secondly, if it isn't broke, don't fix it just because a new shiny came out. That is irresponsible business management.

Thirdly, the price premium you pay up front for Apple hardware is inclusive of software, includes besides the Apple Tax, the Apple product longevity advantage, which amortizes that cost over more months and years, substantially lowering total cost of ownership. In addition to that the used equipment price is so high with Apple one can have a TCO a fraction of that for a PC despite the higher new product price.

I feel Apple should warn users to NOT use 0.0 and 0.1 and 0.2 versions of software unless they are brave. But there is probably some reason besides PR, such as legal they do not, but I am telling you. Don't do it.

It took a long time for 10.4 to become stable, 10.5 only barely is now, and 10.6 will not be ready for prime time till 10.6.3.

This is the unwritten reality of Apple OS's. They adopt new software and features as a marketing ploy to press you to update each level of software because some other doodad requires it to be compatible.

If you are a business you don't need that doodad. You need a business machine that is reliable and stable.

Want doodads? Buy a separate machine and network it, so when it crashes and burns on some silly new feature nobody really needs anyway, it does not take down your entire business operation, client base, and product and ordering system.

Advise.

Rocketman

You may pay me a fee for this advise.
 
Yeah. Like GaAs, diagonal routing, and polyimide dielectric. It was all potential and never went anywhere other than some specialized uses. And you can't make money in non-x86 desktop-voltage processors anymore. SPARC or itanium will be the next to go. PowerPC has another decade depending on whether the game console makers realize they need to return to (or visit for the first time) x86.

Its the 90s all over again, IBM has a gem and doesn't know what to do with it.
 
Firstly, do not be an early adopter of software in a production environment, EVER!

Secondly, if it isn't broke, don't fix it just because a new shiny came out. That is irresponsible business management.

Sound advice, which I spoke almost word for word to my boss when he demanded I upgrade our work machines to snow leopard, so we were current with his machine (which does nothing except surf the web and run powerpoint).

And surprise surprise, there were problems with the computers that are used for heavy production work- you know, the real work? ;)

Oh, to have a boss that actually remembers what production work is like.
 
I'd need some time to spend with Windows 7 trying to do actual work, but I don't even want to invest in a copy to run on my MacBook Pro.

Windows 7 will run for free for 30 days without an activation code, so you can easily test drive it for free if you can find the DVD image or borrow a DVD.

If you try and decide to buy, just apply the activation code from the DVD that you buy to your "trial" kit. (Note: be sure to "try" the version that you intend to buy unless you plan on reinstalling.)
 
But that's just it - it really isn't a gem.

Oh but it was, it was a cheap parallel CPU that expanded better than GPUs. It allowed University students to have a supercomputer under $5000. It allowed TVs to multidecode channels. It allowed IBM to give the RoadRunner its power without a bigger dent in the US Militaries pocket. It allowed Sony to give devs better processing power and augment the RSX Video and Sound capabilities. It allowed Fixtars to make an integrated linux cluster. I can go on...

It was never meant for desktop use in the first place, but IBM tried to advertise it as such, instead of a parallel bonanza. Remember OS/2? That was a gem, it was better than Windows with out the hardware encumbrance of NeXTStep. But IBM charged for the SDK and didn't push it ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS...
 
Oh but it was, it was a cheap parallel CPU that expanded better than GPUs. It allowed University students to have a supercomputer under $5000. It allowed TVs to multidecode channels. It allowed IBM to give the RoadRunner its power without a bigger dent in the US Militaries pocket. It allowed Sony to give devs better processing power and augment the RSX Video and Sound capabilities. It allowed Fixtars to make an integrated linux cluster. I can go on...


Fine. As I pointed out, I was talking about cpu's for non-specialized applications. It seems we agree.
 
As an owner of a 2008 spec 8 core Mac Pro I have a hard time understanding the benefits of this given that there is hardly anything available to take advantage of its power, let alone a 12 core machine. What apps can fully utilize this tech?

Final Cut Studio 2 or 3? Nope.

Photoshop? Nope.

Maya? Maybe?
 
As an owner of a 2008 spec 8 core Mac Pro I have a hard time understanding the benefits of this given that there is hardly anything available to take advantage of its power, let alone a 12 core machine. What apps can fully utilize this tech?

Final Cut Studio 2 or 3? Nope.

Photoshop? Nope.

Maya? Maybe?

In this very thread there are some apps listed that can take advantage of it. Also, sometimes you might want to run more than one app at a time (or more than one instance of the same app). Some workflows involve doing multiple processor-intensive things that can be done in parallel, for example.
 
As an owner of a 2008 spec 8 core Mac Pro I have a hard time understanding the benefits of this given that there is hardly anything available to take advantage of its power, let alone a 12 core machine. What apps can fully utilize this tech?

Final Cut Studio 2 or 3? Nope.

Photoshop? Nope.

Maya? Maybe?

If you have a multi-threaded workflow, more cores can be a blessing even if none of your applications can effectively use 12 CPUs.

In other words, you could run three applications that can use 4 CPUs at the same time.

But your question is a good one - not many people will see a big benefit in simpler application workflows. On the other hand, there's no disadvantage to getting 12 CPUs at the same price as today's 8 CPU systems.
 
In this very thread there are some apps listed that can take advantage of it. Also, sometimes you might want to run more than one app at a time (or more than one instance of the same app). Some workflows involve doing multiple processor-intensive things that can be done in parallel, for example.

If you have a multi-threaded workflow, more cores can be a blessing even if none of your applications can effectively use 12 CPUs.

In other words, you could run three applications that can use 4 CPUs at the same time.

But your question is a good one - not many people will see a big benefit in simpler application workflows. On the other hand, there's no disadvantage to getting 12 CPUs at the same price as today's 8 CPU systems.

Points taken. And there certainly isn't a disadvantage (unless the costs go up significantly.) I've seen people mention Maya and Maxwell Render, what else is there? When I run Compressor it doesn't appear to be taking advantage of all 8 cores. Something I would like to see is native virtualization in OSX. I think that creates some really interesting possibilities.
 
Something I would like to see is native virtualization in OSX. I think that creates some really interesting possibilities.

Yes, very interesting. At this point, you need to go to Windows Server, Linux enterprise, or one of the big-iron UNIX systems to get serious VM managment built into the OS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.