Switching back to the devil?

[bearcatrp]

Totally agree on the stability of OS X. I almost bought the i7 iMac but it still has issues. Don't know why but seems apple's QC has gone down over the years. My 2006 24 inch iMac is still going strong. Still have tiger on it too. Both of my 2006 and 2008 Mac pros had only small hiccups but still rock solid. 2009 and beyond the problems grew. With cloud computing gaining ground and allot of services to use the cloud for our needs, FOR A PRICE, seems this is the direction computing is trying to go. Don't think I will upload anything to get edited or processed. But if they price the tools high enough out of most folks reach, like the Mac pro, then your stuck between a rock and a hard place. Spend the big bucks for do it your self equipment of smaller price for them to do it.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Apple should have put at least a i3 or an i5 in the new mini.

What is the advantage of an i3 over a C2D? Core i5-5xx series is where the performance delta starts.

 

[philipma1957]

I'm not quite following you. This looks like an interesting package. I don't see an OS anywhere. Are you planning on using Windows 7, Linux, or try to Hackintosh it (difficult to make the BD player work I should think)? The price seems pretty high without an OS.

Well I mentioned this in this thread because I never purchased or owned a pc. used them but never wanted to own one. the thread was really more of a I am switching to pc/Windows theme. I am kind of looking into doing windows /pc as an owner not just a user of the library's pc or my workplace's pc. So I would buy the machine above and run it as a windows /pc.

As long as I am ranting on this I wrote 50 threads (on mac mini 123)
that the mini should become that what that pc is. A bit taller for a better processor and hdd with decent hdd connections.

Instead the new mini is a weak machine really over priced
(real pretty though kind of a like hot chick that does not do that thing. you know the thing you really like but she looks good walking down the street hold on to my arm).


Back to mac vs pc's I own an iMac and while it is fast has no hdd connections that are worthwhile. so I went out and purchased the Mac Pro. Happy with the Mac Pro just po'd that apple would not make a decent piece of gear like the pc mini in the link.

 

[philipma1957]

.... Personally, a mini a little taller with an ssd and a 500gb and a DVD would have been almost perfect.

just add a usb3 or an esata to that mix and I would not own the pro. the choice is ridiculous . mac mini or Mac Pro with nothing inbetween.

The imac is not an in between due to no esata or usb3 connections and a next to impossible hdd to fix or update.

 

[MacHamster68]

ok the link i post now is old and in terms of spec a bit outdated , but there had been mods that i liked to see and this mini mod would fit right in between even today , with just one addition it would be perfect , 2 pci slots job done apple the ideas had been in front of your eyes
http://www.applegazette.com/mac-mini/mac-mini-mac-pro-mod-is-supremely-impressive/

 

[goMac]

Don't think anyone mentioned using the mini as a editing machine. But the fact is apple still using older chips where most pc manufactures moved to the i series processors. A dual core chip with hperthreading would have been a nice upgrade for the mini. Another issue on the mini is why only SL server for a mini with 2 hard drives. Personally, a mini a little taller with an ssd and a 500gb and a DVD would have been almost perfect.

And again, adopting the i3 would have meant using intel integrated graphics, which would have been an overall downgrade.

Hyperthreading is also not a major deal.

Really, there still isn't much reason to put an i series onto a Mac mini.

If you're upset that the Mac Mini isn't a mini tower, that's really not the same thing, nor is that fair to the mini.

 

[bearcatrp]

At least apple could have put a processor with a bit more umph in it. something closer to 3ghz would have been nice.

 

[mjsmke]

The main reason i use Apple computers is for the OS. I've used Windows in the past and even tried Win 7. Win 7 is rubbish. I crashed it in less than 10 mins by trying to open a few large Tiff files (1.5GB each) in Photoshop. It was a lot slower than my Mac Pro and it had a better CPU. It was like driving a Ferrari with the brakes on all the time and looked ugly.

But if Windows is for you then do whats best for you.

 

[chrono1081]

I don't know what thread you were reading but its full of mis-information. That being said if you want to switch switch. Not to mention this whole "Apple hates pro-users" idea from people is nonsense. Apple doesn't have near the amount of people working on a project that other companies do, and this is part of the reason why their software is so much less buggy then others. People never seem to realize that.

Also seeing some of your quotes I have a hard time believing this isn't flame bait since some of these are quite outlandish.

- Frankly it really does not matter. there is absolutely no point to buying an Apple unless you are runing Logic or Final Cut.

This is completely incorrect. It all depends on your usage. For me, Windows can't handle what I do. I used to have a $7k HP xeon workstation at work that I would work on. The Macbook pro in my signature ran circles around it so I'd bring my MBP to work and work off of it.

- they are over priced and underperfoming of a windows system.

Definitely not true. See my comment above regarding performance. Not to mention you can throw a huge workload at Mac OS and it runs it like a champ. Can't say the same about Windows. You get what you pay for.

- OSX has major issues with properly using multicore.
so 12 cores now rather than 8 is well useless. (even logic cant use the 8 correctly or FC)

Works fine for everyone I know. The ONLY issue I remember seeing is with 6 cores and Logic which I'm sure will be fixed in an update. Multicore programming is insanely tricky. Its easiest to implement it on Macs with Grand Central Dispatch.

- add to that the C-State issues with Apple EFI and you have a very pretty and expensive toy.

Get real. Non-existant problem.

- and this is coming from an Apple dealer:
i would have been far more excited if Apple had anounced a new OS that actualy worked rather than 12 cores.

This is definitely flame bait. To say OSX doesn't work is ridiculous. What doesn't work about it? My system always turns on and is perfectly fine, never crashes, never gets viruses or spyware. What doesn't work again?

- it seems increasingly clear to me that sooner or later I will be back in the Windows fold. After all this time waiting for new Mac Pro's, I had expected something a lot bolder from Apple - maybe something to leapfrog the competition. Geez, not even USB 3.

USB 3 is dead before its out of the gate. Hence why Intel isn't supporting it. You aren't going to have an easy time finding it on windows machines either. Plus everyone who needs speed uses eSata anyway.

- I've been holding off the switch back to windows but I think I'm going to do it.I honestly believe apple is abandoning content creators for content consumers. Makes good business sense for them but does not give me the warm-and-fuzzies for investing in a $5K plus machine.

Yet another unfounded opinion. Apple makes excellent software. Like I stated above, they don't have tons of programmers and software engineers doing nothing but churning out software like other companies, but what they put out works and works well for a long time. I can't say the same about the big name companies who have tons of software engineers and programmers (Adobe and their CS3/CS4 fiasco).

If you want to go windows, go ahead but please don't come pollute our threads, we have enough of that already. But after reading and responding to the quotes I'm 100% sure this is flame bait (which I fell for). I used to work in IT and can tell you, if you think the Windows world is trouble free your sadly mistaken.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Although my switch several years ago to Mac made sense at the time, I think the move I just made is a good one - even if Apple had come out with new Mac Pro's better suited to video editing. I have been saying that the switch to Mac was like the time I tried out being a vegetarian. It is so good to be eating meat again!
What do you think?

I am feeling the same way.
I made a serious commitment to apple a few years ago simply to be able to run FCP because then it was better than Premiere.
But lately, I have seen apple become a phone and gadget company and neglect the software and hardware that I find important.
I do not see that trend changing in the future either, which is the worst part of the situation.
The next time that I buy a computer, I will be looking very hard at which platform is better and offers a more reliable future.
Right now apple is not doing it for me, and the danger for it is that soon others will be challenging it for gadget supremacy as well. There are some fantastic smart phones already out there and soon we will be seeing tablets that compete vey well with the ipad. By abandoning its original computer mission, apple may find that it lost those customers, and when its gadgets don't stand out from the crowd and cost a lot more, they will lose that market as well.
Then they'll be left only with a rump of fanboy types who will pay ever more for their stuff without giving it a moment's critical thought.
It's a shame really.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

USB 3 is dead before its out of the gate. Hence why Intel isn't supporting it. You aren't going to have an easy time finding it on windows machines either. Plus everyone who needs speed uses eSata anyway.

USB 3 is new to the marketplace -- no way to tell how far it will go. But, there are very few products out there yet. This is not a case of everyone else having something that Apple doesn't, so, I can't imagine who would make a system choice based on USB 3 at this point.

 

[philipma1957]

I am feeling the same way.
...

But lately, I have seen apple become a phone and gadget company and neglect the software and hardware that I find important.
I do not see that trend changing in the future either, which is the worst part of the situation.
The next time that I buy a computer, I will be looking very hard at which platform is better and offers a more reliable future.
...

It's a shame really.

I feel just about the same. Lots of little tiny mobile gadgets. I don't need them or use them very much at all.

USB 3 is new to the marketplace -- no way to tell how far it will go. But, there are very few products out there yet. This is not a case of everyone else having something that Apple doesn't, so, I can't imagine who would make a system choice based on USB 3 at this point.

I FOUND this piece of gear a 3tb usb3 seagate enclosure ;

http://cgi.ebay.com/3TB-Seagate-Fre...ltDomain_0&hash=item2a0ad6b6e5#ht_1630wt_1141

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3858/the-worlds-first-3tb-hdd-seagate-goflex-desk-3tb-review


looks useful a 3tb single drive at usb3 speeds.

 

[maflynn]

Why did Finder need to be converted to Cocoa?

There is a lot of stuff in this thread that isn't really technically sound. Finder had some issues, but none of them had anything to do with Carbon.

Apple wanting people to use cocoa and take advantages of what cocoa had to offer, including controls, the framework seemed to get more love then the carbon library.

My point is less of what's wrong with finder and more, that if apple is pushing a technology, they should be the ones using it first, i.e., eat their own dog food.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I switched back, for most of my needs, and only use my MBP for final cut. Windows 7 isn't all that bad.

 

[maflynn]

I switched back, for most of my needs, and only use my MBP for final cut. Windows 7 isn't all that bad.

I built my own computer a few months ago, and it replaced my MacBook Pro. It was a great experience, as I had not done this since the days of the intel 486 - yikes that's a long time ago.

Anyways I loaded win7 and it was "ok" Win7 doesn't suck, its stable as some interesting features but all in all, I missed what OSX brought to the table. So much so, I converted my i7-930 into a hackintosh. While that was my long term goal, I decided to accelerate the time line because I missed OSX so much.

I can see the OPs perspective, the cost of hardware is so much cheaper and many of the apps are updated much more often then what apple provides. Still, there's something to be said about using OSX.

 

[darlenea]

Happy with Mac - not perfect but happy

I have just switched to a MacPro - no computer environment is perfect but so far I like it. Last Dec I had my son switch to an IMac - previously ever time he came home I had to spend several hours or more cleaning up his pc laptop even though I had it well set up with anti virus etc. I have not had to touch his Imac in the 9 months he has owned it - to me this is a very big deal. Darlenea

 

[goMac]

Apple wanting people to use cocoa and take advantages of what cocoa had to offer, including controls, the framework seemed to get more love then the carbon library.

My point is less of what's wrong with finder and more, that if apple is pushing a technology, they should be the ones using it first, i.e., eat their own dog food.

What technologies exactly?

People seem to say things like that, but with no specific examples.

The entire reason Finder was Carbon was that developers were complaining that they didn't think Apple would support Carbon, so Apple ate their own dog food. Originally, Finder was Cocoa, and Apple recoded it in Carbon.

Finder's issues had nothing to do with Carbon. And I say that as a developer who's totally behind Cocoa.

 

[milo]

I'd say if you're planning on running cross platform apps, in many cases you're better off with a windows machine. Especially since many devs seem to make the windows version a higher priority and end up with better performance on that side.

If you use FCS, your decision is whether you want to stick with it and hope for 64 bit and use of all cores in the next version. If this happens in the next 6-12 months, I'd think you'd be very happy staying on mac. If not, PC looks pretty good.

Audio apps are a similar case, there seems to be much better use of multiple cores and more 64 bit app and plugin options on the PC side. Hopefully that will change soon, but who knows?

 

[RebootD]

I can see the OPs perspective, the cost of hardware is so much cheaper and many of the apps are updated much more often then what apple provides. Still, there's something to be said about using OSX.

This is a huge personal dilemma for me as well. I needed a new Mac so I got the 09 Quad Mac Pro for $2200 + $400 in 3rd party RAM/HDDs etc. I could have built a similar i7 machine for half that amount. (Yes Xeon isn't the same as i7 but for my needs I couldn't care less). But I love OS X and everyone in my field uses Macs so it's easier from a collaboration point of view to stay with it.

Now I want to upgrade my video card because I'm starting to use Premiere/AE CS5 more and the only high end card is the illusive 5870 that is still 'unavailable'. On the PC side I'd have my choice of about 100+ makes and models. (And I don't edit enough to warrant a $1400 Quadro card) I could settle for a 5770 but that is a $129 card selling for $250.

The lack of choices + scarcity of upgrades that are available can be seriously frustrating.

 

[goMac]

This is a huge personal dilemma for me as well. I needed a new Mac so I got the 09 Quad Mac Pro for $2200 + $400 in 3rd party RAM/HDDs etc. I could have built a similar i7 machine for half that amount. (Yes Xeon isn't the same as i7 but for my needs I couldn't care less). But I love OS X and everyone in my field uses Macs so it's easier from a collaboration point of view to stay with it.

Tthat's the target market of the 27" iMac. They run AE and PPro smooth as butter, and they're good machines.

Honestly, if you're going to be spending serious time in AE/PPro, you probably want a six or eight core machine at least, more than you need the 5870. Not that a four core won't run it acceptably, but if you're going to be doing more serious work you want those cores. Four cores is a little light.

 

[RebootD]

Tthat's the target market of the 27" iMac. They run AE and PPro smooth as butter, and they're good machines.

Honestly, if you're going to be spending serious time in AE/PPro, you probably want a six or eight core machine at least, more than you need the 5870. Not that a four core won't run it acceptably, but if you're going to be doing more serious work you want those cores. Four cores is a little light.

Had an iMac and sold it. I hated the glassy shine and no expandability but that is just me. I love my NEC IPS (matte) display + RAID0 combo which wasn't available in any iMac at the time.

I also agree a 6/8 core would be much more efficient but I'm only doing a few small projects in them right now. (90% of my work is graphic/web design with some flash thrown in). If I start generating enough income with Pr/AE then I'll think about selling my 1.5yr old machine.

But with the video card I have the stock GT120 and it's terrible. 512MB of VRAM and it can't render/play games worth a lick. Plus it seems to hate GPU acceleration in any Adobe app and I never had an issue with Macs + ATI cards in the past.

 

[goMac]

Had an iMac and sold it. I hated the glassy shine and no expandability but that is just me. I love my NEC IPS (matte) display + RAID0 combo which wasn't available in any iMac at the time.

I also agree a 6/8 core would be much more efficient but I'm only doing a few small projects in them right now. (90% of my work is graphic/web design with some flash thrown in). If I start generating enough income with Pr/AE then I'll think about selling my 1.5yr old machine.

But with the video card I have the stock GT120 and it's terrible. 512MB of VRAM and it can't render/play games worth a lick. Plus it seems to hate GPU acceleration in any Adobe app and I never had an issue with Macs + ATI cards in the past.

I dunno, I have the GT 120 in one of my Mac Pros, and it's ok, not great. But it's kind of a massive leap from the GT 120 to the 5870. Surely there is a happy middle ground? Up until a few months ago we had the 4870 and the GTX 285, both of which were more than capable cards. There is still a Quadro available, with a new one coming this month....

The video card selection isn't THAT bad. The only issue I have is that there is no model of NVidia card available right now, which leaves a gapping CUDA hole, but for some reason NVidia is dragging their heals on that.

The GT 120's problems don't have anything to do with the VRAM really. 512 megs is a decent enough amount of VRAM, enough to handle 1080p with no issue. It's the GPU on it that's slow.

The GPU acceleration issues have to do with a) broken NVidia drivers in 10.6.3 and b) GPU acceleration sucking in general in AE. You're usually better turning GPU acceleration off on whatever platform you're working on.