Mac Pro To Get Dual Optical Drive Slots?

[supremedesigner]

Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.

Ohhhh! That could work. Have anyone tried this before? Thanks! I'll check on it when I get home!

 

[BlizzardBomb]

512MB RAM on low-end and an X1800 Pro on high-end. I must admit, I'm a little disappointed if this is true.

EDIT: MacRumors lists as X1800 Pro, AppleInsider says X1800 GTO.

 

[heisetax]

No CPU sped increases!

This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.

This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.

Any bets on which year it will be?

Bill the TaxMan

 

[bigandy]

the size and weight of the power supply makes it damn stupid to put in the top.

top heavy is just idiotic.

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...

 

[Stridder44]

1) This is all rumour and speculation...
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.

I used to side with the people complaining about not having enough standard RAM but not after reading that. You get a gold star.

 

[dpMacsmith]

Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.

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.

 

[AidenShaw]

Check HP

Now, that is FUNNY!

However, based on availability, Apple could get up to 3GHz if they
really wanted to:

Dual Core Intel® Xeon™ Processors 5160 (4MB L2 Cache, 3 GHz 1333MHz FSB)

Perhaps "one more thing......"

Seven day delivery (which is standard) for dual 3.0 GHz Woodies.

Availability is not a big problem.

 

[shamino]

So why use woodcrest WITHOUT dual processor configuration? Makes no sense, any single proc models should 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.

Macs have ALREADY had two optical bays (including twin CD drives). And none of these configs include two drives, you'd only have a second one if you wanted it.

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.

 

[4God]

This means that the 2.7 GHz G5 of a year ago or more would still be a high for CPU speeds for the PowerMac/MacPro line. We already have dual dual 2.5 GHz G5 a year ago. An increase to 2.66 GHz means that either 2008 or 2009 we will see the promised 3 GHz PowerMac/MacPro.

Any bets on which year it will be?

Bill the TaxMan

I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.

 

[Sweetfeld28]

i always thought it would make more sense to have the power source at the bottom, yes it would help to lower the center of gravity, but would also help desipate the heat generated from it as well. Once the heat would raise from it, the fans in the middle would help to pull it out quickly, unlike if it was at the top and have all the heat from it rise to the top.

Correct me if i am wrong, as i do not own a G5. But, in my MDD G4 my power supply is at the top, and do notice that my big fan in the middle does tend to run at higher speeds in these hotter summer months.

ryan

 

[~Shard~]

Since apple is part of the Blu Ray consortium wouldn't you think they will use blu ray only?

No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD.

 

[shamino]

My PC (in a full tower case) has the PSU at the bottom. Having had a case with the PSU at the top before, it seems more stable with all that weight in the base of the case. It also makes it easier to reach around the back for cables, as I don't need to stretch as far.

As long as you don't have liquid cooling (a-la the quad G5 systems.)

If your radiator springs a leak, the liquid runs into your power supply, blowing it out (and usually taking out the motherboard as well.)

With the PS on top, this doesn't happen. A leaky radiator simply means a liquid mess in the case (and a system that hits thermal-shutdown very quickly until you get it fixed, of course.)

 

[RichP]

Ha, when I posted a while back that using Dell as a guide, Xeon processors were feasible, I was ignored, now it seems totally reasonable...

Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)

I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.

 

[guzhogi]

According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. (2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.

 

[shamino]

I think we'll see more cores per cpu before we see 3GHz. IMHO, 4,8 or more cores at 2.66 is far better than 1 or 2 cores at 3GHz.

Intel has already announced 3GHz Woodcrest CPUs.

The question isn't about when the chips will become available but when Apple chooses to put one in a system.

Which might be in the first batch of systems. Remember, we're all discussing a rumor from an anonymous source, not an actual product announcement.

 

[Doctor Q]

top heavy is just idiotic.

Case designers aren't perfect, but they aren't idiots either. Some PCs have power supplies on top, despite the top heaviness and the extra path for the power cable. What's the reason? There must be some tradeoff involved or they'd never build them that way.

 

[heisetax]

Less expensive?

A new case would be "fun" but what I care about is what it delivers, not how it looks when I crawl under my desk

For the low-end (single chip) towers, dual core Conroe makes more sense to me than Xeon, simply for cost reasons. (Though I'm eyeing the new Xeons for my first ever top-end Mac... with dual-duals!)

Two optical slots would be nice, allowing me to "wait and see" about next-gen optical formats.

My intention: to wait for 3Ghz+ Xeon, which sounds like it should only be a few months later. That's also time for a few little tweaks to be made if necessary, giving me something between a version A and version B machine.



Without a doubt. And in keeping with long tradition, the "less expensive" name-brand PC will mysteriously come with less (ports, software, even speed if Netburst lingers) than the Mac

From a purely math point of view the Mac will always loose out when compared to a like Windows unit. This will be easier yet to see with both machines using the same processors. A Mac User will add in the Mac experience, ease of use, better looking case, options that just work, Plug 'n Play compared to Plug 'n Pray & other items like total cost of ownership or need we say less headachs.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[dongmin]

A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?

I thought the two processors were identical (in a single processor config) except that the Woodcrests have a higher FSB (1066mhz vs. 1333mhz). According to the Anandtech review, the 1333mhz FSB gives you only about 3% boost in speed.

Core 2 Duo

2.13 ghz - $224 (2MB L2 cache)
2.40 ghz - $316
2.67 ghz - $530

Xeon 5100 series

2.00 ghz - $316
2.33 ghz - $455
2.66 ghz - $690

It makes more sense to go with a 2.4 ghz Conroe for a single-processor config, since it's cheaper than the 2.33 ghz Woodcrest. What I'd like to see:

GOOD
2.40 ghz Core 2 Duo - $1499

BETTER
2 x 2.00 ghz Xeon - $1999

BEST
2 x 2.67 ghz Xeon - $2799

Of course, if Apple were REALLY ambitious, they should release a mini tower using Conroes and release the Mac Pros in quad-only configs.

 

[cloudnine]

To charge $1800 for a system that only has 512MB is a real disappoitment. 1GB RAM oughta be standard, especially with Leopard being on the horizon.

Unless the Xeon is that expensive (which I can't see how it would be), I don't see that as anything except creating some seperation between the configurations.

I agree... my buddy got a macbook pro and it came standard with 512mb of ram. For the first 3 or 4 days, he thought he purchased a defective notebook, it ran so badly. Opening MS Office applications literally took minutes, and that was with nothing else open. He took it back into the Apple store and the rep told him that his problem was his ram, so he purchased another 1gb (1.5gb total), and now it runs perfectly. You'd think that with all of these intel machines being released and a huge selection of software not being Universal yet, that 1 gig of ram would be standard...

kinda a$$h0lish if you ask me.

 

[kevin.rivers]

What about SLI video card support? They should try and appeal to high end gamers by having a configuration comparable to Alienware or Dell's XPS. If Apple's hardware can now run Windows, Apple should really take a stab at this market. It will be hard to justify $3000 for a computer that doesn't have the latest cutting edge hardware. Dual 512MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GTX would be a nice start. Otherwise, the accusation of overpriced computers will be appropriate. Why would someone running Windows consider this purchase, if they can get better components for less money elsewhere. Is Apple really serious about taking market share away from PC companies? Or are they going to play it safe and target only the market that they already have?

They would have to move from the Intel reference boards to ATI(Crossfire) or the Nvidia 500 series.

Anandtech's Core 2 piece went into some of the details about Dual GPU support. Crossfire is shaky, and the Nvidia 500 isn't here, although the current line supports Core 2.

You do however need to go and look at current pricing. There would be 2 Woodcrests in the machines.

Fact is no one knows what Apple is going to do or has in the works. So please stop crying foul until what is happening is concrete.

The only people making the accusation of overpriced computers are those who:

1: Build their own computer
2: Don't know anything and just wants things at a cheaper price, no matter how reasonable it may be
3: People who pretend they want an Apple, so they can whine about the price: "I want to buy an Apple, but they cost soooo much! OMG TEH SUZORZS!", these people usually fall in with number 2 as well.

 

[greenstork]

I'm salivating for a new desktop as I have been limping along with my dual 1GHz mirrored drive door (wind tunnel) for the past few years. I'll likely buy a middle to top end Mac Pro as soon as they are released and although I'd love a dual woodcrest, I'll be happy too with a single conroe.

On a related note (rant)...

I think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot not coming out with some sort of digital media center / DVR. Along with a computer and television, it's the one electronic appliance that I cannot live without. The playing field is so ripe too -- TiVo is just establishing itself with cable companies and moving out of satellite, cable company DVR's suck, there is no easy ability to rip a DVD to your computer and put it in a library, there is no easy to use set top box option to buy movies.

Think about DAPs when the iPod came out, it's the same landscape. Sure, there were digital audio players that all paled in comparison to the iPod. I think Apple has that same opportunity with a media center/DVR.

The problem, I presume, is that the MPAA & broadcast association would never let it happen. Apple will never be granted permissions to sell movies if they come up with a device to rip DVD's or record television.

One can always hope. I know Apple could make a device that absolutely blows away everything that's out there right now, and it seems short sighted to not develop a product that begins to merge computers and television, this merger is inevitable. So while everyone's going off about FW800 ports in front and the location of the power supply, I'm wondering where the TV tuner and CableCard slots are.

 

[FF_productions]

2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! ).

Steve Jobs really must have been embarassed after claiming we'd have 3 ghz when we still can't even pass 2.7 ghz without a huge unstable liquid cooling system. Maybe Intel will bring us 3 ghz next month, a quad 3 ghz Xeon, does that even exist?

My problem with having 4 cores at 2.6 ghz is what will the other Mac Pro's offer? One more month...

 

[KEL9000]

No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD.

I wasn't being a smartass.

The list of steering members excludes apple but includes sony. I don't think that that is relevant. The standard member list has everybody associated with DVDs in it.
http://www.dvdforum.org/about-steering.htm

I suspect they will choose one format over the other because all the systems (except potetially the MacPro) apple makes will only have one optical drive. Forcing them to choose a standard for media delivery.

 

[heisetax]

In Between!

That's nice...

They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...

Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.

The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[shamino]

According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire.

Re-read the article.

It says there will be three available slots - 2 4x and 1 8x. These are the slots that will not be used by factory-bundled devices.

The bundled ATI X1800/X1900 video card will be in a 16x slot. It probably won't physically fit anywhere else!

(2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots.

4 slots. 3 unused. Not 3 total.

Most PCs don't have more slots, either. Sure you can find a few counter-examples, but 6-slot systems are not common. And with the exception of the PM 9500/9600, Apple has never shipped a 6-slot system. (The Quadra 950 had 5. Everything else shipped with 4 or less.)

Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.

You seem to think that a Pro system must have the capability of accepting every hardware device ever invented. (And how do you do this without making the case six feet tall?)

Dual video cards are only used by gamers. I doubt gamers are going to be interested in buying one of these, for the same reason they don't buy other Macs - the software comes out for other platforms first.

As for FC interfaces, they can work fine in any of the available slots. And there's no need for audio cards when you've got S/PDIF optical audio in/out.

Remember also that a studio won't be doing both video and audio editing on the same console! The people who are expert at one job are not going to be expert at the other. And if your studio is so strapped for cash that the different editors have to share a single computer, then you're in pretty sad shape!

I don't think you realize what you're asking for. A system that is capable of performing all possible tasks at once is just unrealistic. Nobody will ever equip a system like that, because no user will have those kinds of requirements.

Even in the PC world, where more slots are common, you almost never find a system that has actually filled all those slots with devices.