Mac Pro To Get Dual Optical Drive Slots?

[Timepass]

Wow, I can remember when 1GB was the max for ANY computer. For that matter, I can remember when 1GB was a pipe dream. (I remember getting excited about being able to afford a 4MB RAM card for my computer!) Right now 2GB is the top end for a number of computers. I don't see that limitation as being that significant an issue.

You can upgrade the hard drive, by replacing it. True, there isn't another slot for an internal, but you can always add externals with relative ease. Again, I don't see this as a significant limitation.

Optical drive? You certainly can replace the optical drive. Kits have been out for this configuration for some time. While, right now, if the optical drive on an iMac went bad, they'd be smart to have Apple replace it under warranty, once they start getting older, I'm sure we'll see more kits aimed specifically at the Core iMacs. While it's true that it's not as easy as changing an optical drive on a tower, it is still possible. So let's not talk about the death of the optical drive killing the computer, shall we? Hmm?

Now, there are plenty of single components that you could point to that would kill the computer. All of them are on the main logic board. But, as someone else pointed out, killing the main logic board of any computer would kill the whole computer.

And, of course I was acknowledging that there were limitations like the lack of PCI slots in the iMac. I was just arguing that saying the HD and the RAM weren't upgradeable wasn't really accurate.

2gig max on high end computer these days..... Umm no not the case. Try my computer was mid high 2 years ago and it max ram is 3gigs. My roommate computer which is about 6 months newer than mine and was built to about the same mid high at the time max is 4gigs.
Now I dont rememeber when 4megs of ram was a lot. but i do rememeber when 16megs was consider a lot of ram. I thinking with in a year 2 gigs will be near the standard ammount people will want to be running. 2 years ago 512 megs was it and 1 gig was recomended. Now 1gig seems to be the least amount you run and 2gigs is starting to come up more and more and recomendations. Not like 1gig where it about the least you want to run any more.
So give it a year and 2 gigs will be the where 1 gig is now. The standard recomended ammount to run in a computer. 1gig being the min. 512 for a crawl. right now it 1gig recomended. 512 beign the min and 256 for a crawl.

Also extranl harddrive are also slower than an inteneral hard drive. No really way around that issue. Plus things dont look at clean when you start running extranl devices. I think a 2nd intenal is good. it a lot easier to have that as a primary storage location that it is to use an extranl for it.

As for a single compontined in a iMac that will kill it that doesnt effect the tower system is the monitor going bad. instead of paying a few 100 to replace it it almost cheaper to just buy a new computer than pay apple cost of replacing it and repair.

Also the lack of being able to replace the GPU card is a big thing that is limiting the iMac. With more and more software moving over and using the GPU it seems to be the thing that is pushing replacements. In and iMac if the GPU fails that means new logic board. In a PC tower or something with a removeible card it means just a new card. In my PC tower the graphic card is hitting limitions and I am worried about it failing (cooling fan on it is starting to fail). Now in a iMac that failure would translate into a very costly repair. In my PC tower it going to cost me 150 bucks to buy a much better card and as a bonus extend the useble lifespan of the computer at least another year.

Plus you got the entire lack of ablitlity to add PCI cards to the iMac. Run out of USB ports/fireports that can be an issue. You can add a hub to your sytem but that slow down the ports some. You cannt add more bandwith to them. But with a PCI card you can easily add more parts or upgrades.

 

[Shinjinho]

I think this new MacPro's will be all quad. If they can sell a single xeon 2.0 for 1799$ they can also sell a dual xeon 2.0 for 1999$ (i know, that cpu costs 320$ but Apple has a great margin on these machines, and probably a good price from Intel).

MacPro 4x2.00 -> 1999$
MacPro 4x2.33 -> 2399$ (with more stuff, like a SAS Raid controller)
MacPro 4x3.00 -> 3299$ (they MUST sell at least ONE mac at 3GHz)

Just my 2 cent

(Sorry for my bad english)

 

[griz]

Adc??

Nice Mockups, but why an ADC connector on the video card?
Dual DVI is more likely.

 

[guzhogi]

I also think there should be a mid-range Mac tower. Maybe sell the Mac Mini starting at $499, iMac starting at $999, Mac Medium (or whatever you want to call it) at $1499 and Mac Pro at $1999. Key differences:
-Medium Mac in midtower case w/ 2 optical drive bays & 1 or 2 hd bays, Pro in full tower w/ 3-4 optical bays and 3-4 hd drive bays
-Medium has one x16 PCIe slot and two lower speed PCIe, Pro has 2 x16 slots in SLI/Crossfire mode and 4 slower PCIe
-Pro allows hardware RAID on the mobo, not in medium
-Pro has more RAM slots
-Conroe for medium, woodcrest for Pro

The way I see it, the pro is to be a workstation while the medium is for the average user who wants more expandability than the iMac & Mac Mini, but not as much as the pro. I know most people would need the 6 total PCIe slots in the pro, but just in case they do, they have the option.

Apple should use more standard parts in its computers. I said before I'd like to see ATX power supplies and maybe even an ATX motherboard just so people can transplant it to a regular ATX case if they wanted. I also think Apple should use video cards w/ PC ROMs, too just so we can use whatever card we want. This could lower prices a bit. And go w/ a standard DRM thing in iTunes so that we can buy songs from other stores and use other MP3 players if we wanted. I could see why Apple would want to see it closed: more $$ for them, but if they open it up, they might make more $$ than they think. At least people would be happier if they could use whatever they wanted. And when the PC world goes to EFI, maybe license Mac OS X to other companies & bring back the clones. If it doesn't work, they can always stop it again. I know at least some of you are deadset against some of this and I understand. Just don't flame me.

 

[OdduWon]

it seems with the gap between the mini and the mac pro there is little room for conroe to find a place. may be the mini will get the "pro" model and have dedicated graphics card and expandable ram. this would be great for the people who have their own monitor need more power than the mini and don;t want to spend the cash for the mac pro. i think it would be great if the made the mini pro like a double mini ( like two mini's sitting on top of one another) almost like the cube. this would be a great case size and be able to fit enough stuff in it to be like a imac pro without a moniter

 

[spetznatz]

Now here's a left-field idea: A company called ABS is selling systems with 2.93 GHz Conroe Extremes overclocked to 3.5 GHz using water cooling. Apple has a tried-and-tested, elegant water-cooling system...slap in cheaper Woodcrests, overclock the arse off them, 3GHz+ quads all round...aythangyew...

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,126407,pg,1,00.asp#

Also, I loved this snippet from the review:

To keep its overclocked processor cool, ABS introduced a large water-cooling system that dominates the interior of the Ultimate X9's case. While the cables inside the case are tidily tucked away, the water pipes running through the case interior take up a lot of space and make the system's innards look messy. The water-cooling system limits expansion options, too, since the pump, reservoir (which holds the water that carries the heat away from the processor), and associated pipes block all of the vacant externally accessible drive bays (making it a moot point that the system's big chassis is designed to house up to seven externally accessible drives). Two large, noisy fans on the case vent hot air from the other components, so the quiet advantages of water cooling are lost.

So, how much were you paying for that again....?

 

[viggen61]

Come on PSU do are not that heavy and genenally speaking cases are pretty stable. Putting the PSU at the top, oh dang the computer will tip over with 1 inch of less travel. It a Tower that going to be out of the way and not hit that offen. Come on PC have been built for years with PSU at the top. Are they unstable... No they are fairly stable. Considering 95+% of all PC towers out there have the PSU at the top and are they tipping over at a slight hit.. No. you have to tip them pretty far before they will fall over.

Also there are other advatages of putting the PSU at the top. Instead of having to make another fan system to cool it and keep it separated from the rest of the case due to the heat it generatates you can now put it at the top where it not going to add heat to the case and use the PSU fans to help cool the rest of the computer.

Lets see that means less fans are needed over all in the computer which means Oh my gosh. LESS NOISE. <sarcasim>Is that possible. Using a PSU fans to help cool the entire computer...... Who as ever heard of such a thing. <sarcasim> Really people most of the agurments people are using against putting the PSU at the top are stupid and weak at best.

It WILL NOT make the computer top heavy. The base on computer is wide enough to keep it stable any how.

It WILL NOT add any more noise to the computer (it will reduce it because the PSU can now help cool the case with it own cooling fans as well)

Power plug at the top.. Um yeah not really a problem. Oh dang a wire is not 12 in higher than it was before. it is still on the back. and instead of plugging in you monitor at the top of the case and the plug on the bottom they flip locations. You the user will never notices or care.

I have to agree with TIMEPASS. Additionally, I own a G4 Digital Audio, which has the power supply at the top (I may be mistaken, but I believe all of the B&W G3 and G4 models are like that). It's a fantastic idea, IMO. The power supply is probably the least heat-sensitive component in the system, while being possibly the greatest heat-generating component. I also like that the disk drives are at the very bottom of the case (the non-removeable media), so they get all the cool(er) air they need. They're not baked by the power supply. I'm convinced that's what kept the original 40 GB drive alive for 5 years in a G4 that has been on for about 95% of that time.

While I think having the PS at the top is a good change (and, not owning a G5, I wasn't aware it was in the bottom), should it come to pass, keeping the identical case design would be a disappointment for me. I like the fact that Apple keeps on their toes, refreshing their designs, sometimes even without basing it on any other hardware change.

 

[milo]

i'd love to see dual optical drive bays and the same basic design as the G5. it's a great design, so why the need for change in the first place...

Sure, it's a great design for a box that it is enormous and has minimal expansion...I guess you mean you think it's pretty?

This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.

Amen to that, I think those prices are unrealistically low. For apple to have a price-competitive tower, it would have to be conroe.

4M of L2 cache is another good reason. According to recent reports, only the "extreme edition" of the Core 2 (aka Conroe) chip will have 4M. And it will cost more than Woodcrest.

And how much performance improvement does that give you? Is a bigger cache really worth hundreds of dollars?

Where have you been shopping recently? Only one model PowerMac has ever had two optical drive bay.

The MDD G4 PowerMac towers (August 2002-June 2004) have two optical drive bays. The G4 PowerMacs that came before only have one (the lower bay is only big enough for floppy-size devices, like zip drives.) The G5 PowerMacs only have one externally-accessible bay of any size.

I would love the ability to install two optical drives, but your claim that Apple is currently shipping this somewhere is simply not true.

That's the model I was referring to, I had one and put a second optical drive in it. I never claimed they're currently shipping one, I said they HAD a model (past tense) already with this. I was sad to see it go with the G5's, the internal expansion was a HUGE step down.

Also, as for the sound card, what about sound in? Some musicians might want MIDI in/out. I know, a lot of MIDI instruments come w/ USB now, but some musicians might want MIDI.

I think all the intel macs have digital audio in. Midi connections are virtually always handled on macs with USB, and more and more audio is handled by FW or USB. The number of audio setups that require more than 3 pci cards is tiny nowadays.

 

[milo]

really? off what fact is this based upon or personal opinion?

I guess you didn't hear that Sony has delayed the release of their players for months? They were originally supposed to be out by now - the discs are shipping, someone else is shipping a player, but Sony can't get theirs out the door.

Not to mention the huge delays and anticipated huge cost of the PS3, the great hope for making bluray the winner. Or that HDDVD players are currently half the price of bluray players.

"Shambles" may be an overstatement but there's no question that Sony is having problems.

The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.

I don't see apple going all woodcrest. I just don't think the rumor saying that is right. But I do agree, if they did it would be a horrible idea and a bad deal for customers.

A Mini Tower is the modern equivalent of a Cube...release a cheapo lower-end MacPro and you are set to go...no need for a MT whatsoever, despite the moans of a few select MR users, or nostalgic hobbyists of the past.

There's one big reason you overlook - by making it a bit smaller and leaving out some of the higher end features, Apple could keep the cost down. One of the major reasons people want a mini tower is the assumption that by leaving things out and keeping them more simple, Apple's build cost goes down, allowing them to sell cheaper. That, and the G5 case is a giant monstrosity.

I completely agree that a stripped down, supa-cheap ($1299?) config of the tower would be fantastic and would make most of the people begging for a minitower happy. I just doubt that Apple can really get their tower that cheap, and since they'll need a different mobo for conroe they might as well have a different (cheaper) case as well. The last thing anyone wants is another cube, that's a terrible comparison. The cube was overdesigned, overminiturized, overfanless, and vastly overpriced. What people want is the opposite - bare bones. Decent cpu, video card and one open slot, an open HD bay, and whatever case holds those. Apple could do that for dirt cheap, and it would sell very well. I think just having a choice of video card is justification enough, right now that's ONLY available with a tower, which is pretty outrageous.

This is really a shame. The prices should have been lower - and the dual-slot should be an option (people like me even RARELY use a CDs or DVDs, two slots would be a waste of money).

Actually, the price is decent for what it is, go look at Dell for comparison. The problem is that the lineup doesn't have a cheap model because none of the configs are based on Conroe. I happen to think this rumor is wrong. And don't sweat the second optical SLOT, it's not an extra drive, just a space for one. All it means is a plastic door in the front of the box, adds nothing to the cost.

The Apple of late has been good about leaving one lower-end tower at a reasonable pricepoint to allow people who simply want expandability to get into a tower.

$1999 is nowhere close to reasonable. The $1499 price point of the past was much better, but there's no reason apple shouldn't have an expandable model for $1199 or less.

Can you seen the advertising... 'Are you Amateur enough? Now we've made the mac for you...'

I still think the intro line if it is like the one being suggested here is pretty poor. People talk about mac's and the ability to upgrade them but for me, at least, the most important thing to prolong the life of one is GPU and on that score you have no choice anyway.

You've always had a choice in the towers and I assume that will continue. The standard configs may have basic gpus, but upgrading to any video card you want is always an option in build to order.

Well, if these rumors are correct, and those are the specs of the MacPro, then Apple has officially lost it. With those specs, I would expect the prices to be about $1499 - $2499, not $1799 - $3299.

Doubt this rumor is correct...did you read the commentary about these specs? AI said they were just being posted for the sake of speculation since they're widely circulated, not that they believed the rumor at all.

And the prices for those specs are actually pretty low...the chips used in those configs are very expensive, if you look at Dells with those configs they're actually quite a bit pricier.

Which is yet another reason that this rumor is probably wrong, because apple will likely use Conroe on the low end instead of raising the price of the base model even higher.

I still don't get it. You people are asking to be able to upgrade everything that you can already upgrade in the MacPro, but you're asking for it to be cheaper than the MacPro. What???

Well, not everything. Fewer slots and fewer drive bays than the Pro. Most people would be ecstatic to see a model that had the specs of the iMac, just leave off the monitor, swappable video card, and an extra HD bay. Such a model would cost apple less to build than an iMac.

 

[odedia]

In my view, the top end machine must employ an architecture such as NVIDIA's SLI, one that will offer two graphics cards and more. This will allow amazing GPU power, plus the ability to work with more than 2 cinema displays at the same time - could be very efficient for video production, and heck, even gaming.

 

[Snowy_River]

2gig max on high end computer these days..... <SNIP>

An iMac is a high end computer? That's news to me.

Obviously you didn't pay attention to how this part of the discussion got started. I was simply pointing out that the hard drive and the RAM were, in fact, upgradeable in an iMac, contrary to what another poster had said. I'm not saying that the iMac is a completely upgradeable system. Clearly it has its limitations. But, just as clearly, it is a system that works for a lot of people.

Hey, I'd be all for a mini-tower type Mac. I might even actually buy my first desktop computer in a long time. (I've gotten so addicted to mobility!)

 

[zero2dash]

In my view, the top end machine must employ an architecture such as NVIDIA's SLI, one that will offer two graphics cards and more. This will allow amazing GPU power, plus the ability to work with more than 2 cinema displays at the same time - could be very efficient for video production, and heck, even gaming.

Reportedly they're switching back to ATi gpus.
They could try Crossfire, but is it really necessary (given the state of the lack of publisher support for Mac gaming)?

Don't get me wrong - I think more companies should bring out their games on the Mac, no question. But whether or not including Crossfire would benefit anyone remains to be seen. Sure, they could bring out Crossfire support and 2 Radeon cards, and then say to developers "look, here's the gaming hardware that you wanted, now make us some more games and see the Mac as a viable gaming platform" (which it is, it's just not supported well). Or they could include it, jack up the price a little, and it may not sell.

Remember who you're catering to.
Desktop gamers aren't going to spend $3000+ on a MacPro with Crossfire. That high end model is primarily meant for movie/design houses and recording studios, not a home user wanting to play Counterstrike.

 

[Timepass]

An iMac is a high end computer? That's news to me.

Obviously you didn't pay attention to how this part of the discussion got started. I was simply pointing out that the hard drive and the RAM were, in fact, upgradeable in an iMac, contrary to what another poster had said. I'm not saying that the iMac is a completely upgradeable system. Clearly it has its limitations. But, just as clearly, it is a system that works for a lot of people.

Hey, I'd be all for a mini-tower type Mac. I might even actually buy my first desktop computer in a long time. (I've gotten so addicted to mobility!)

the ram is upgradible to a low end computer ammount (2gig max is low end sorry to say for a desktop).

The hard drive is only 1/2 upgradible. It requires replacement you cannt add to it with a 2nd interanl hard drive. And since the mac can not boot from an extrnal hard drive that hurts. It only 1/2 upgradible.

The imac is just a laptop that sits on a desk. It has all the draw backs of a laptop and the draw backs to a desktop and none of the re avatages of either.

 

[milo]

The imac is just a laptop that sits on a desk. It has all the draw backs of a laptop and the draw backs to a desktop and none of the re avatages of either.

That's not completely true. The iMac uses a desktop hard drive, it's cheaper than comparable laptops, and it doesn't have the battery limitations.

It has *some* of the characteristics of a laptop, but not all.


Is it true that the iMac can't boot from external drives? Is this true of all intel macs?

 

[Snowy_River]

<SNIP>...And since the mac can not boot from an extrnal hard drive that hurts.<SNIP>...

Since when? I've installed OS X on external drives and used them to boot, as well as booting on a desktop from my PowerBook in target disk mode. So, what Macs have you been using that don't allow you to boot from an external?

 

[Timepass]

That's not completely true. The iMac uses a desktop hard drive, it's cheaper than comparable laptops, and it doesn't have the battery limitations.

It has *some* of the characteristics of a laptop, but not all.


Is it true that the iMac can't boot from external drives? Is this true of all intel macs?

Battery limitations..... What are you talking about? With a battery you can move the computer around and use it else where. The imac is stuck in one location.

Since when? I've installed OS X on external drives and used them to boot, as well as booting on a desktop from my PowerBook in target disk mode. So, what Macs have you been using that don't allow you to boot from an external?

And last time I check the intel iMacs could not boot from an extral drive. I know that was the case on at least the earily intel macs and I havent heard about that changing yet.

 

[milo]

Battery limitations..... What are you talking about? With a battery you can move the computer around and use it else where. The imac is stuck in one location.

And last time I check the intel iMacs could not boot from an extral drive. I know that was the case on at least the earily intel macs and I havent heard about that changing yet.

I'm talking about that with laptops you have to worry about the battery running out, that's not an issue with the iMac. So it doesn't have all the disadvantages of a laptop (along with the others I mentioned).

And a google search shows a number of articles saying the intel macs can boot from either FW or USB2. What makes you think they couldn't?

 

[Timepass]

I'm talking about that with laptops you have to worry about the battery running out, that's not an issue with the iMac. So it doesn't have all the disadvantages of a laptop (along with the others I mentioned).

And a google search shows a number of articles saying the intel macs can boot from either FW or USB2. What makes you think they couldn't?

It was something I read here at there release they couldnt. I want sure if apple manage to change that.

 

[rainmanbk]

Honestly I think those specs are way to wimpy. X1800? Yeah right. It's called Pro for a reason. It's for professionals. The Mac Pro may have an X1800 as an option, but it will also definitely have a standard workstation card as an option. How can Apple afford to put some crappy consumer card in their professional line. There has to be an option even if certain buyers don't take advantage of it.

If it has to be ATI fine, but there is something called the FireGL.

I am not believing some random Joe's specs. I have way more faith in Apple than that.

 

[Keebler]

Also extranl harddrive are also slower than an inteneral hard drive. No really way around that issue. Plus things dont look at clean when you start running extranl devices. I think a 2nd intenal is good. it a lot easier to have that as a primary storage location that it is to use an extranl for it.

hi timepass, i have to chime in here with an fyi. this isn't exactly true. usb, fw 400 and fw800 are slower than a true internal, but an 'esata' external is just as fast as an internal b/c it acts just like one. i have an external esata enclosure with 2 500 GB HDs and i can't notice a diff b/n my 2 other internals. Of course, in the purpose of this chat for an imac, this won't work as you need a specific pci card, but i thought i would mention it as most folks haven't heard about esata and it's much more faster and reliable than other externals. i will personally never buy another type of external. cost wise, they are way more efficient.

oh and regarding the comment about being cleaner, this goes for any type of external, to me, they are seamless on the screen. in fact the only difference is that the esata HDs are gray like internals and the others are orange.

hope this helps.

 

[^squirrel^]

Honestly I think those specs are way to wimpy. X1800? Yeah right. It's called Pro for a reason. It's for professionals. The Mac Pro may have an X1800 as an option, but it will also definitely have a standard workstation card as an option. How can Apple afford to put some crappy consumer card in their professional line. There has to be an option even if certain buyers don't take advantage of it.

If it has to be ATI fine, but there is something called the FireGL.

I am not believing some random Joe's specs. I have way more faith in Apple than that.

I'm pretty sure they'll have the following GPU's to pick from X1600, X1800 and X1900.

On the CPU side... 2.33, 2.66 and 3.0.

I hope for god's sake they have 1gb ram as factory fit in these machines. 512mb will never be enough!

 

[rainmanbk]

I'm pretty sure they'll have the following GPU's to pick from X1600, X1800 and X1900.

Yeah, but do you really think the X1900s are good enough? I feel like after all is said and done, it's still only a consumer level card.

 

[milo]

Yeah, but do you really think the X1900s are good enough? I feel like after all is said and done, it's still only a consumer level card.

Probably good enough for a base configuration. They'll always have BTO with "pro" graphics cards, don't forget some people want blazing speed but aren't running apps that need crazy graphics power.

 

[rainmanbk]

Probably good enough for a base configuration. They'll always have BTO with "pro" graphics cards, don't forget some people want blazing speed but aren't running apps that need crazy graphics power.

Well I'm glad someone agrees with my original thoughts. I definitely agree.

 

[killr_b]

I miss expandability...

Evangelion gave me this idea from one of these posts...

Mock Pro Tower clicky

I like the $3000 pro tower thing. And would also like a $999 tower for every other computer user on earth who we want to switch from a pc. 'Cause it ain't gonna happen without it. Stock holders hail Conroe.