There are several compelling reasons for choosing a Mac Pro over an iMac for pro work. The one I will add to the mix is "cleanability." I can pop the cover off on a scheduled basis and clean the inside with compressed air. I have to. I have a home office. I also have 2 dogs, 5 cats, and live downwind of a large vacant lot. Dust, dander, and pet hair make cleaning the house a 2X per week affair.
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.
New Mac Pros and Mac Minis Launching in August
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think Blu Ray is only about H.264. Apple pays for the codec, but what about the audio codecs used in Blu Rays? True HD, DTS HD, these are all propriety codecs as well. I'm pretty sure you pay extra for the BD movie playback even if the OS supports H.264.
And I think that everything is financial, because it can't be about anything else.
Yes but exactly for the difference of form factors, iMac is better because it's smaller. So, size vs cleanability.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anybody who voted for him. -- attributed to Pauline Kael, 1972
No, actually I'm right - but either way I wouldn't feel bad, this isn't an ego thing.
Your examples are funny, but irrelevant because mainframes, microcomputers and PCs are all the same thing - with each iteration gaining performance and losing size.
You're making the mistake (like thousands of people) to think that the same is continuing. It isn't.
For the first time, computers are becoming smaller and *less* powerful, thus not being able to replace the ones before. An A4 chip is far less powerful than a G4 running at the same MHz, but it has a way better GPU and specialized hardware that makes it run the GUI fast and efficiently. Computing power is quite pathetic.
It's a logical fallacy you're making, but again it's ok, thousands of people are making the same mistake.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, actually I'm right - but either way I wouldn't feel bad, this isn't an ego thing.
Your examples are funny, but irrelevant because mainframes, microcomputers and PCs are all the same thing - with each iteration gaining performance and losing size.
You're making the mistake (like thousands of people) to think that the same is continuing. It isn't.
For the first time, computers are becoming smaller and *less* powerful, thus not being able to replace the ones before. An A4 chip is far less powerful than a G4 running at the same MHz, but it has a way better GPU and specialized hardware that makes it run the GUI fast and efficiently. Computing power is quite pathetic.
It's a logical fallacy you're making, but again it's ok, thousands of people are making the same mistake.
Wow, you're incredibly far off.
If you think a PC is more powerful than a mainframe, you're... I don't know how to even start a rational debate with you.
The idea is that mainframes DIDN'T GO AWAY. They're still there, and they're much more powerful than any desktop PC. It's just that the vast, vast, vast majority of people don't need that power.
Just like the majority of people using PCs today don't actually need all that power.
The only model that would make sense to consider offering Blu-Ray in is the mac mini. The computer with a Blu-Ray player would be good for entertainment systems.
But it isn't a good business decision. It isn't worth the investment.
Most people are opting to stream from the internet or their itunes library. For those with Blu-Ray disks who want to rip them, the option is to get a Blu-ray drive to do it. It is only a matter of time before AppleTV is upgraded to 1080p and then ripping disks at that resolution would make sense.
Blu-Ray sales are on the decline. Well the stories are conflicting on this. In some quarters I've seen reports of Blu-ray disks and players not selling well. But there have been some bumps in Blu-ray sales as people still buying media switch from DVD. But overall DVD and Blu-Ray combined are seeing sales decreases. I personally prefer to buy the physical copy of any media so the trend goes against my personal experience. But Apple looks at market trends and does studies on what will sell or not. They have to because they will at times bring new products to market with large production runs. They do not just "test the waters". You can imagine the marketing studies for the original iphone and ipad.
So yes I would think it is nice if Blu-Ray were included in a mac mini but I don't see it happening because it really doesn't matter to enough people to put it on Apple's list of required features.
But it isn't a good business decision. It isn't worth the investment.
Most people are opting to stream from the internet or their itunes library. For those with Blu-Ray disks who want to rip them, the option is to get a Blu-ray drive to do it. It is only a matter of time before AppleTV is upgraded to 1080p and then ripping disks at that resolution would make sense.
Blu-Ray sales are on the decline. Well the stories are conflicting on this. In some quarters I've seen reports of Blu-ray disks and players not selling well. But there have been some bumps in Blu-ray sales as people still buying media switch from DVD. But overall DVD and Blu-Ray combined are seeing sales decreases. I personally prefer to buy the physical copy of any media so the trend goes against my personal experience. But Apple looks at market trends and does studies on what will sell or not. They have to because they will at times bring new products to market with large production runs. They do not just "test the waters". You can imagine the marketing studies for the original iphone and ipad.
So yes I would think it is nice if Blu-Ray were included in a mac mini but I don't see it happening because it really doesn't matter to enough people to put it on Apple's list of required features.
I keep seeing this point raised again and again, and it's true as far as it goes - but it takes money to make money. Meaning that to make product X more popular, money needs to be invested in product X.
If Apple wants to sell more Macs, more Mac Pros, then they have to invest in it. They also have to cater to pros, by e.g. not keeping future upgrades of *pro* products a secret (i.e. give a roadmap) and to assure pro users that they're not discontinuing said product any time soon. Like they did with XServe, when one day many admins woke up and found that the whole line had been scrapped with only a few months to go.
Invest in professional machines and communicate with professional users; that will result in more profit and as we all know, Apple is in it for the profit. Pro equipment is seriously high margin, so it is a very good business to be in.
You're not entirely wrong. Magny-cours processors (the AMD 12 cores) do tend to have lower clock speeds... but whether or not they're "slower" depends on your work load.
Personally, I write massively parallel simulation software that scales to well over 10,000 processors... so I can make perfect use of every core in my workstation. When you have that ability... having 24 slightly slower cores is _always_ better than 12 fast cores.
Turbo boost doesn't enter into the equation because when you're running a simulation (or rendering or whatever) turbo boost won't be active (it's generally only active if you are using just a couple of cores and only for a few seconds.... like starting up a new application for instance).
Yes there is no hyperthreading... but real cores always beat hyperthreads. For any floating point intensive work hyperthreads are useless (because there is no duplication of floating point units for hyperthreads... so the two threads running on the same core compete with eachother for execution time). For our workloads as soon as you go up into hyperthreads (ie your number of threads exceeds your number of real cores) performance always goes _down_.
Just like with clock speed... this will depend on your application and workload. Just pointing out that there are areas of computing where current AMD 12 core chips will win hands down over Intel (which is the reason we just bought 12,000 AMD cores for our new supercomputer which debuted at #99 on the Top500 list today).
At any rate... I _really_ hope Apple rolls out Mac pros with more real cores... I could really use them...
Last edited:
Exactly. You don't need more horsepower to replace yesterdays PC anymore. Because the majority of PC users stopped needing more horsepower several years ago.
I am speed constrained. See my post above... but the short of it is that my software can use every core available (run up to over 10,000 cores).
I do spend quite a lot of time waiting on my current Mac Pro with dual 2.93 GHz 6-core Nehalems. Both during software development (waiting for compiles) and runnning (waiting on simulation results).
As hard as it is to believe there really are people out there that can push even the highest end workstation available from Apple.... and we're willing to pay big bucks for our machines.
Just by myself I spent tens of thousands of dollars on Apple hardware last year.... and expect to do it again this year. That's the reason why Apple will stay in the workstation business... it is _profitable_.
I'd use BD to do both, but one can already buy a 3rd party BD-R drive to burn data discs. It's the movie playback Apple isn't supporting. Authoring BDs is also a pain because one can burn the video on the disc, but not play it back.
Makes one roll one's eyes at Apple quite vigorously
Indeed, software development is one of the areas where more cores is a win.
Apple is already selling more and more macs. Mac user base is growing every quarter. So they really don't have any problems on that front. More macs don't mean more Mac Pro's of course. Mainly laptops, as is the case with the PC industry.
About revealing roadmaps, it'll never happen. Apple's entire sale strategy depends on secrecy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mainframes are just made up of many many PCs, such as the IBM blade server. The CPUs are designed specifically for server use, but there's no magic to it. It's just PCs.
Google uses a network of off-the-shelf hardware, with some custom chips thrown in when they don't need all the stuff on the motherboard. If you think mainframes are some mysterious refridgerator-like boxes containing "supercomputers", well wow - then you're incredibly far off.
There isn't really a tradeoff in power/performance between one desktop CPU and another, there's just design differences. They don't rely on being very job-specific, nor power saving.
They don't have to run in an all-in-one tablet, which is where some serious tradeoff of power for size is going on.
In short: you are wrong, in an epic way. What do you think computers are? Fairy dust machines made magical by Steve Jobs??
Actually you're wrong on that account as well (and I guess now you've seen the light with the iPad.. I'm surprised it took you so long, considering your über-positive Apple-do-no-wrong attitude!)
It's not replacing PCs, it's offering people something with a fraction of the performance of a PC, but it can run Facebook on a glossy touchscreen, more or less idiot proof.
It replaces a PC like a tricycle replaces a motorcycle. (i.e. not really, you're just getting something idiot proof, with a fraction of the performance and more lightweight, but I guess most people can get by on a tricycle for minor trips)
Last edited by a moderator:
Mainframes are just made up of many many PCs, such as the IBM blade server. The CPUs are designed specifically for server use, but there's no magic to it. It's just PCs.
Google uses a network of off-the-shelf hardware, with some custom chips thrown in when they don't need all the stuff on the motherboard. If you think mainframes are some mysterious refridgerator-like boxes containing "supercomputers", well wow - then you're incredibly far off.
There isn't really a tradeoff in power/performance between one desktop CPU and another, there's just design differences. They don't rely on being very job-specific, nor power saving.
They don't have to run in an all-in-one tablet, which is where some serious tradeoff of power for size is going on.
In short: you are wrong, in an epic way. What do you think computers are? Fairy dust machines made magical by Steve Jobs??
You're confusing super computers with mainframes. And it's amazingly ironic that you're using the term "supercomputer". Then throwing in normal servers, just for fun.
Keep talking though, I want to see how far you can dig yourself.
Big boxes... like this one? Nope, none of these around still.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/23/ibms-zenterprise-architecture-makes-mainframes-cool-again-also/
If more Mac sales don't mean more Mac Pro sales, then Apple is screwing up somewhere and *making a mistake* (oh but is that even possible??!)
The majority of Macs sold is naturally laptops, but if the unit sale of Mac Pros isn't increasing at the same rate as Mac sales in general, then Apple is doing something wrong.
As for Apple's business model relying on secrecy, how can you even say that straight faced (I assume) after you've done nothing but claim and claim again that Mac Pro upgrades are dependent on Intel (which *doesn't* have a secret roadmap)??!
Besides, how does that even make sense, to keep pro machine roadmap a secret? It's not like pro customers impulse buy, for crissake!!
Make sense goddamit!
Well it would be about God Damn time if they actually DO update the Pro with a new design! It also wouldn't surprise me if Apple pull another coo and get the new Xeons before anyone else.
Be interesting to see what Apple come up with if this is true. Also I hope they keep the mini as it is, just update the internals as the design is cool as feck IMO!
That's pathetic man! You want one of these puppy's
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/20/fujitsu-k-supercomputer-now-ranked-fastest-in-the-world-dethron/
But the power requirements is a bit of a bummer! lol.
Be interesting to see what Apple come up with if this is true. Also I hope they keep the mini as it is, just update the internals as the design is cool as feck IMO!
That's pathetic man! You want one of these puppy's
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/20/fujitsu-k-supercomputer-now-ranked-fastest-in-the-world-dethron/
But the power requirements is a bit of a bummer! lol.
Oh my lord, how can you be so ready to reveal your own ignorance? A-mazing.
Well, that box you link to contains 96 CPUs (essentially 96 PCs on a tree of motherboards) - that's your mainframe. A PC.
Nor is it particularly ironic that I use the term "supercomputer" when making fun of your "knowledge". Apparently you think these are "supercomputer", but are just clustered PC CPUs.
Mainframes of yesteryear don't exist any longer, now there's just this: zEnterprise 196, offering 96 5.2GHz cores, 3TB of RAM, and hot swappable I/O drawers for when you need to change pants in a hurry
Keep up the smugness though! It's entertaining
Oh my lord, how can you be so ready to reveal your own ignorance? A-mazing.
Well, that box you link to contains 96 CPUs (essentially 96 PCs on a tree of motherboards) - that's your mainframe. A PC.
Nor is it particularly ironic that I use the term "supercomputer" when making fun of your "knowledge". Apparently you think these are "supercomputer", but are just clustered PC CPUs.
Mainframes of yesteryear don't exist any longer, now there's just this: zEnterprise 196, offering 96 5.2GHz cores, 3TB of RAM, and hot swappable I/O drawers for when you need to change pants in a hurry
Keep up the smugness though! It's entertaining
You don't know what you're talking about. I don't know how more plainly to put it. If you think that the 96 CPUs in that IBM mainframe are the same as a CPU in a PC... Well, enjoy your ignorance is the only thing I can say.
And you do realize that this isn't something I'm making up here, right? There are very real differences between a mainframe and a supercomputer. I've worked on both. Have you?
(Oh, and real classy, up-voting every single of your posts the moment you post it)
that doesnt quite make sense. the hardware, as you noted, is indeed different than what you find in a PC ("personal computer") box. hardware-level features for fault tolerance, lock-stepping, etc, are different than the cheaper components used for most consumer computing devices.
...perhaps you should write Mr. Jobs and the board a letter, explaining how youve identified a mistake theyre making? that they're "selling them wrong"?
hurry! before it's too late and they overtake the last remaining corp worth more than they are!
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand.
Why would one want to buy a small, restricted system and daisy chain a bunch of expensive peripherals off of it - instead of buying a larger system that will fit all/most of those inside the case using cheap off-the-net components?
People say that "the MiniMac is so small and elegant", but when you look at a typical mini it is a rat's nest of USB and 1394 cables and random add-on cases in random styles.
I would think that a mini-tower or mid-tower with internal slots and bays would make a lot more sense. (Of course, it will be nice when those come with TBolt so you can go O-O-T-B if you need to.)
Why would one want to buy a small, restricted system and daisy chain a bunch of expensive peripherals off of it - instead of buying a larger system that will fit all/most of those inside the case using cheap off-the-net components?
People say that "the MiniMac is so small and elegant", but when you look at a typical mini it is a rat's nest of USB and 1394 cables and random add-on cases in random styles.
I would think that a mini-tower or mid-tower with internal slots and bays would make a lot more sense. (Of course, it will be nice when those come with TBolt so you can go O-O-T-B if you need to.)
Last edited:
All my life I use powermac, mac pro etc... I mean the top level computer of mac... in a rack mountable... mmm interesting and weird to my room... you know I dont want like a server ... I buy beacuse I like work with the best, fast and have expansion... in hds etc..
Interesting beacuse I was think buy and iMac and not buy anymore macpro, I use for work in web and entertaimente itunes etc... maybe some people can say "hey you dont need a mac pro for that" but men how I HATE use a slow computer! so I want the best...
why you learn that? you buy a imac and feel slow?
I have the macpro 08... I want see the new for see If I buy and sell this one
Last edited by a moderator:
No they aren't. The components you get in a mainframe you can't get in any IBM blade. None of the CPUs are close, the pBlades are the closest but still a mile away.
Don't get confused about the zEnterprise 196 and the blade expansion it provides. The blades are there to provide close couple between your mainframe and other infractutures services that are more than suitable to disitruted computer rather than the more heavyweight mainframe.
An a mainframe is sooo much more than just lots of PC chips
I am too. Right now I have two 2GB drives at a work station where I park my laptop. These contain all my home movies digitized in imovie and the original copies of scanned photos. I have one disk cloned to the other as backup. I keep my iphoto library on the laptop though.
Once a mac mini is available with TB I will get one and add it to my entertainment system and move the imovie library to a TB drive with a second for a clone as I have now. I'll use wireless keyboard/mouse/trackpad for editing the movies.
I used to be of the mindset that a tower was needed for movie editing. I had a G3 laptop and a G4 tower (I upgraded the CPU in it too).
But now the towers seem unnecessary. I edit movies perfectly fine with my laptop. The tower seems more useful for people editing at the professional level and meeting a short deadline. Certainly A new mac mini would do better than my current laptop at handling a large imovie database.
If you wrote this down as the answer to questions on an exam for a graduate level computer architecture course at a major university, your resulting grade would not be very good I'm afraid.
