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.
USB 3.0 and Faster FireWire in Next Mac Pro, iMac?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the iMac is the little brother who is successful with a good job without even going to college, while the Mac Pro is old, fat, and beginning to get gray hair.
Well....
There was also the fact that he was a ham radio geek in the old days and geek is as geek does right? Eh.
There was also the fact that he was a ham radio geek in the old days and geek is as geek does right? Eh.
Yep.
I bought a FW800 to FW800 cable and a FW800 to 400 cable and each of them cost me more for shipping than they did for the actual cable this way.
I have no complaints, I'm set.
I bought a FW800 to FW800 cable and a FW800 to 400 cable and each of them cost me more for shipping than they did for the actual cable this way.
I have no complaints, I'm set.
The mythical xMac, which Apple seems dead set against producing.
I finally gave up on Apple and did exactly that.
the iMac is the little brother who is successful with a good job without even going to college, while the Mac Pro is old, fat, and beginning to get gray hair.
Ouch! Hopefully the Mac Pro joined a gym and got hold of some Just For Men in time for the 2010 Mac Pro
Glad you like it. It's been around since the death of the G4 Cube. It's golden years were during the Power Mac G5 days when Apple started to kill off the $1299 upgradeable Mac tower.
The big boon years were shortly after the Mac Pro was released at above $1999, and everyone hoped and wished for non-Xeon desktop chips in a tower.
The use of the name xMac has kinda trailed off now, but may come back with the introduction of a new Mac Pro, whose price may just start at $2999, and still have a 320GB HDD and 4GB of RAM standard.
sooooo longg
I am quite tired of waiting for the new Mac Pro, and right now there is no way in hell I would buy the 2009 model knowing the 2010 model can come out really soon.
The problem is I need a new computer now... I guess I am going to get a PC and maybe try my luck with hackintoshing it.
I am quite tired of waiting for the new Mac Pro, and right now there is no way in hell I would buy the 2009 model knowing the 2010 model can come out really soon.
The problem is I need a new computer now...
I guess I am going to get a PC and maybe try my luck with hackintoshing it.I am quite tired of waiting for the new Mac Pro, and right now there is no way in hell I would buy the 2009 model knowing the 2010 model can come out really soon.
The problem is I need a new computer now...
Are there any manufacturers who make pre-built machines that can be "hackintoshed?" CyberPowerPC, perhaps? THey let you choose your motherboard.
Or you could just build your own system; not at all hard like some may think.
Nope. I just built a hackintosh on a EP43 and all I had to do was use the boot cd someone made for the EP45 board. 20 minutes total to have a fully working build. Will complement my MacBook Pro nicely.
I am supremely tempted to try. I've seen cyberpowerpc computers with a six core i7, with USB 3, overclocked 30% for $1800. If I could just run a program and make it a mac, I'd love it.
Of course updates to Mac OS would be terrifying.
That's why you do a "vanilla (unmodified) kernal" install by using a supported chipset. I just started using the boot cd for my motherboard, lit up my snow leopard DVD and ran the install, then pulled down the 10.6.4 combo update and now the box sits in my closet. Some of the really high end motherbords will work fine with a little modification. Performance graphics features like SLI and Crossfire won't work on OS X though.
The community has been making waves since the last time I messed around with it, over three years ago.
That's where you seem to be confused. The Mac Pro is NOT a "consumer" machine and it's never been marketed as one nor is it priced as one. So this idea of a "low-end Mac Pro" doesn't make sense. I'm not asking for a low-end Mac Pro, but rather an actual desktop machine. The iMac is NOT a true desktop because ALL models of it use a mobile GPU. I'm sorry, but a notebook GPU doesn't cut it for things like gaming. If you don't need to game or run certain 3D apps at high rates then it probably doesn't concern you, but then my Macbook Pro does those thing just fine and I dock it to a 24" monitor already. In other words, the iMac is completely and totally superfluous. It's only real appeal is desk space saver, but that falls apart the moment you realize all expansion (including a necessary IMO backup drive) has to sprawl all over your desk since there is no internal room for it.
It still wouldn't have a real GPU because it would get too hot in that small of a case. That is the flaw of a one-piece design. Notice how despite the presence of such machine types in the PC World, they are NOT popular. The only reason they sell as well as they do in the Mac Community is that people have no other choices what-so-ever for a "desktop" other than the Mac Pro (workstation class and very expensive and presently outdated to boot) and the Mac Mini which is basically a low-end Macbook without a monitor. Neither classify as a true consumer level desktop machine. I think most of the people saying "good enough" simply don't need a good GPU and many seem enamored with everything Apple says, does or demands anyway which makes me question how much of a true opinion they really have in the first place. A woman that states "I'll have whatever Steve is having" wouldn't be my first choice for a date. I prefer real conversation not just agreement with whatever I want.
They'd have to find a way around the heat problem. This would mean a larger case around the monitor and so I don't ever see it happening. Even if they could, what's wrong with a separate monitor? I don't like the idea of my whole computer being down (as in sent for repairs or replacement) just because the monitor happens to die (or a big paperweight if I have to use a 2nd monitor). Other than clutter, I see absolutely no POINT to the "iMac" what-so-ever. Personally, I like the old early 2000-ish era type PowerMac cases and even the Cube was pretty sweet looking. I think Apple should make a new case that stands apart from the Mac Pro (something smaller) and offer a true consumer model and see how it sells. If there's no market for it, they'll find out pretty fast. I think what they would truly find is that there would then no longer be a market for the iMac at all. That might mean Steve would have to admit that it (like the one-button) mouse was a bit of a failure. Yeah, I think the multi-colored 1st generation iMacs had some appeal simply due to the stunning look of the things, but the current iMacs more or less just look like all the other flat monitors out there. What's so revolutionary about that?
Again, so what? What's so great about stuffing a computer into the back of a monitor so there's no expansion room (again external expansion means more clutter on the desk which was the ONLY benefit of the thing in the first place!) and true desktop parts cause heat problems because there's no room for decent air circulation. I think many Mac fans like the iMac simply because it's so UNPOPULAR a design type for Windows machines that it has then become a hallmark of what a Mac "desktop" should look like these days. I'd prefer a cool tower case and real power (I've seen nice PC cubes for network gaming that has a GPU and one card slot in them and run full power equipment), but at a consumer price level.
I guess you are dreaming of a $1600 desktop model with cheaper processors than the Mac Pro's Xeons, but a full graphics card, space for more hard drives and more RAM, and the freedom to choose the display one would prefer to the current glossy displays.
A smaller desktop aimed at professionals and gamers.
Not a bad idea.
Your word in Steve's ear, but this idea has been discussed in Mac circles for years. Unfortunately it's unlikely that such a Mac will show up.
It would probably eat too much into the Mac Pro market (small market, but high margins).
I can't understand why Apple wouldn't produce this.
Does Apple not want more buyers able to upgrade their computer? Is Apple afraid of bad PR if someone messes up their computer when upgrading it? But bad PR due to factory or corporate issues like yellow tinted screens or antenna problems is somehow better?
Is Apple afraid it will take away sales from the iMac or mini? But what about Mac repeat customers that aren't finding anything from Apple that they want to buy? Is it better to lose those repeat customers completely?
Is it because Apple is afraid of damaging the elegance of its all in one iMac? The same elegance that is already destroyed because you have to hook up an external drive if you want two hard drives?
Maybe I can understand why Apple doesn't build a $1500-$1800 dollar desktop component computer with room for two hard drives and an optical drive and room enough for lots of ram. And allow the buyer to choose their monitor.
Apple said: "It Just Works" meaning that its computers are easy to use. But then makes them harder to use by not having any ports or jacks on the front of any of their consumer computers. The only one that is easy to use is the top of the line Mac Pro.
Doesn't matter where you work. There are plenty of places that ACTUALLY PRODUCE THE TRANSFERS that still can't get it right. Otherwise we wouldn't have product trade programs for botched transfers like Gladiator or The Fifth Element.
Don't begrudge us who want Blu-ray on our computers for things you could care less about.
- I.E., I'd love to author shoots on a Blu-ray disc using DVD Studio Pro, but I can't. I'm stuck with some crappy Toast plug-in.
- I'd love to take screen caps (yes, you read that right, I'm an A/V nerd) directly from the disc but I can't.
- I'd love to just play a damn Blu-ray movie on my laptop when on a car trip, but I can't.
Whenever my wife starts asking me the "Why can't you just do this?" type questions, that's when I know my computer is missing something. And it's kind of embarrassing to have to defend a company that I've been a fan of for so long.
And please stop telling me no one is interested in it...
http://www.electronichouse.com/article/ema_report_predicts_blu_ray_to_outsell_dvd_in_2012/
You forgot to add
- Want to back up hundreds of GBs of data on something less volatile than HDDs,
There's no build to order option, but I can get to that with a little work. It's not as big a pain as having to rip EVERY film I want to watch off a disc.
(And downloading is out of the question for me. I want my 7.1 lossless audio, darn it!)
I just bought Red Cliff parts 1 and 2 on Blu-ray and had it shipped from the UK to my front door in 6 days. Total price, 16 bucks USD.
That's almost 100 gigs of data. It'd take me longer to download it by far, even with my supposed 12mbps internet with Comcast. (Which is more like 2-3 mb on average)
A fifth gen LTO tape drive might be an idea. They are fast enough that they can bring most PCs to their knees when it comes to I/O. Plus, 1.4TB native capacity per tape is pretty respectable.