You guys are a trip....you wouldn't be happy if you couldn't bitch about something. It's sad....
Apple obviously didn't feel they needed to redesign the case in order to provide space for more memory. Anyone here need more than 32GB of RAM? That is plenty for a workstation.
S-
I have to ask, are you in IT or engineering?
I don't think they needed to redesign the case, though it would have made it easier, but there were other layout options. It would have been close, and I'd need measurements to be sure.
It's cramped, no doubt, and alternatives may have actually been a little more so. Assuming there was absolutely no way to add in addtional memory with the case dimensions, it would have been better to discard it as is, and make a change.
Granted, Apple makes the specs, and can do what they want, but if the users aren't happy, and can't live with it, that's not a good thing. Just because they can dictate specs, doesn't mean they have the consumers needs in mind. Possibly to the detriment of thier bottom line.
That isn't the point. The point is giving us
1. The full SPEC of the motherboard for our computer.
2. The ability to at least use the CRIPPLED spec to the full extent to which they have left it in there.
Apple creates their specs, and have an ODM create it. They don't have any manufacturing plants. It's all contracted.
They could have made different decisions, such as change the external case size. That would have allowed for a greater number of DIMM slots. Too bad, as it would make the system unappealing for some that truly needed more than 4 DIMM's per CPU.
The specs are what Apple say the specs are...not what you think they should be.
S-
Yes, but if they want to sell computers, they really should listen to their customers. Companies that ignore this have a habit of going under.
Apple didn't build the processor, Intel did. They built a 130w CPU with a memory controller made to access RAM in groups of three for max performance. Apple simply refused to change their cheese grater to make room for all that, even though just making the damn thing slightly wider would've sufficed.
They may not have needed to, had they gone a different layout. If that wasn't possible, they may have better served their customers by changing the case. Intel created an architecture possible of what you speak, but Apple isn't exactly using off the shelf parts either. They have the ability to have custom parts made, and can dictate the specs. Obviously they didn't dictate the specs many would have liked to see.
It might have been possible to change the coolers slightly, and add another daughter board for the DIMM slots. Or even include the CPU's directly to the board, and a single daughter card for the DIMM slots.
Hard to say without measurements, but it does seem possible to me.
The boards are what Intel makes them to be, not what Apple restricts us to.
Unfortunately, Apple has custom boards made, so they get to dictate the specs. No matter how strange it may seem.
Unlike the bitching about the clock speeds, I do think this is a legitimate gripe.
I just don't get it....
As do I.
Keeping in mind the most affordable DIMM is 2GB, not 4GB, 4 DIMM's per CPU is limiting for those who need greater than 8GB/CPU, but not 16GB/CPU.
There was space to put 6+6 DIMMS had the made the heat sinks a little narrower and added active cooling right on the heat sinks to compensate. Instead they chose to make it a pretty layout. Also, they could have put the processors side by side and it would have left plenty of space for 12 DIMM slots. Oh well.
Had they made the coolers any narrower, they wouldn't have been able to eliminate enough heat. I'm actually concerned about the amount they can handle as is, given the depth (direction of airflow). Usually, you want wider than deeper in the direction of airflow to be efficient. Otherwise, it has to be larger, and possibly need greater airflow (louder).
Let me break the ugly news: the third Nehalem memory channel can't be interleaved with the other two. When the controller is set up to use all three channels as a contiguous space you only get cross-channel interleave on 2/3 of the accesses. 1/3 of accesses will be half-speed. Simply not using the third channel gets you an increase in memory bandwidth.
Ask yourself how on earth a controller could possibly interleave over three channels. It's a freaking prime number. Divide-by-three is expensive, and there is no natural layout that doesn't leave gaps, that doesn't require divide-by-three. I'm not sure how this belief can even pass a basic sanity check.
The third channel was added to support on-board graphics memory, but of course could be used for anything else that requires a high-bandwidth memory channel. Apple chose not to use it all rather than hype up some "triple-interleaved memory system" crap - which is all smoke.
What?
Could you point me to the datasheets on this?!?
No it is not that simple.
As Mac users we have to live with the (fortunate/unfortunate) Apple OS software/hardware duality.
Which means if I don't like the Mac Pro desktops then my complete OS investment goes down the drain too. The remaining choices are unsuitable hardware (iMac, Mac mini), Hackintosh or good-bye Mac OSX.
And each of which incurs extra costs.
Switching all your applications to a Windows/Linux version is not exactly free - if they even exist. And takes extra time and effort.
Neither of the remaining options is a good choice - hence the b*tching and swearing.
But you miss the point.
Point is that with very little effort Apple could have made this Mac Pro update a stellar one:
- use dual CPU Xeons even for the single CPU Mac Pro and provide an extra empty slot and 8 memory slots for a 32GB max. The price could easily still have been $2,500 but give people an upgrade path.
- offer 12 memory slots for the dual CPU configs, as a further differentiation for a total of 48GB max.
- offer a Quadro FX 5600 or FX 5800 option, and a GeForce GTX 280 or 295 option.
Yet they chose not to. In order to earn 5% more in the very short term. But probably losing a lot more than that in the medium to long term.
Another reason for people to stick with a Mac, is the software investment. Switching licenses from one OS to another is not necessarily an inexpensive prospect. It can easily out cost the machine.
So people are feeling ripped in a sense, as they feel they've been backed into a corner, as they may not be able to switch from OS X easily, or at all, depending on the software costs associated with actually doing it. Assuming there's even a decent alternative to begin with.
