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.
What is Apple waiting for?
- Thread starter davewolfs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It appears that the Mac Pro waiting bug is the first real virus to spread and affect mac users causing users to go crazy, lose all sense of civility and turn on each other and engineered by Apple themselves no less. Though once again they have shown they are innovative and on the cutting edge of technology, as you get the virus before even buying a computer.
I think we don't find a good answer to the question "what is apple waiting for?" not because there are different opinions or because you can only be with or against apple. I think it's the wrong question.
Who is apple?
It's a gigantic company with a lot employees. All we see are the results that apple allows us to see. The decision to release a new product or to update it, requires infinit decisions by infinit people which all paid to take the right ones.
Just my 2 cents
Dave
Who is apple?
It's a gigantic company with a lot employees. All we see are the results that apple allows us to see. The decision to release a new product or to update it, requires infinit decisions by infinit people which all paid to take the right ones.
Just my 2 cents
Dave
Hey all, they finally let the new Mac Pro out of it's cage:
Check it out on Apple's new page:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=7B72365D&node=home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
Wow, what a refresh. Doesn't even look close to the original.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ducks and runs....
Yeah, that definitely kicks the living **** out of a Mac Pro. a 1.5 GB video card?!
DS my post didn't touch on users searching threads because it wasn't relevant to my objection. My objection was oriented towards the condescension and berating of others. I quoted your @$$holes post because I felt it provided a good example of this, however my post was not simply directed at you alone. This of course was the reason why I chose to write my initial post in a general tone.
Despite your objections stating otherwise you clearly find this thread valuable enough to continually read and post to it. I think this hypocrisy has already been pointed out by others but if you actually believed what you wrote we'd never see you in here.
Lastly your need to speculate on what type of person I am is the sort of crass behavior I object to and one you have now repeatedly demonstrated you're capable of; to reiterate my point I think the forum would be a better place without it.
And as I stated before on many other threads, I never talked about someone voicing their opinion, just that it's done over and over again without seeing if it's been talked about.
And as usual, you ignored the other topics in my threads, the ones that dealt with the quick degradation of these threads, the lack of any real content other than a bunch of people agreeing that they are right and that Apple is a worthless company, and posters that come and throw in their 2 cents when they really have no idea what is going on so they just pick a side and start flaming.
I was in NO way condescending towards anyone in particular, just as you claim you weren't talking to me to begin with although you quoted me in your post. If you were being general why didn't you just make the post, and NOT quote me at all? Just like I did when I made the ****** post. It never came to your mind did it, that when you quote someone that person is going to respond to your comment? It's that type of crass behavior that leads to the condescending tone of those that THINK they are better than the posters that just voice their opinion.
I came here to inform the OP that their topic has been discussed countless times and that it has already been speculated among the users in the know that January 15th looks promising for an update, so their topic was redundant, but as usual, that second group of users came and had to add their 2 cents. That's not the problem though, the problem comes with comments like yours and others that don't get the big picture and the thread ends up as a flame war, or a ***** fight, which is what we are doing RIGHT NOW... arguing differences in OPINION for no reason whatsoever.
If you think someone with a different point of view towards whiner threads is crass and condescending that is your opinion, but before you generalize like you did in your other post you should realize that not everyone is like that 100% of the time, and that not everyone will share your point of view.
And has been said in the countless threads like this one, what is the point of having a discussion when everyone agrees on the same things? They go nowhere, this thread only has value because there are a few people here that disagree on something that isn't even related to the thread's topic, which was hollow to begin with.
As I've previously stated, the moderators need to ban all new threads in the Mac Pro forum until our dreams get announced, as they always degenerate into... THIS.
Back on topic, if Apple was waiting for anything, I'd have said it was the Radeon 38xx series. Now, I'd have to say they're waiting for the 3870 x2 (or 3890, whichever you prefer) if they're waiting for anything other than MWSF.
Back on topic, if Apple was waiting for anything, I'd have said it was the Radeon 38xx series. Now, I'd have to say they're waiting for the 3870 x2 (or 3890, whichever you prefer) if they're waiting for anything other than MWSF.
Actually, you read my mind... everyone wants a new video card, maybe Apple is waiting for supply of the new video card. This has held them up in the past.
Ummm....The measurements for MPG's have changed over the years. If you compare the figures today you'll probably see a lot lower numbers for those old cars. The power figures have also changed and cars didn't always make nearly as much power as they said they did. Cars do plenty more and have been steadily getting bigger since the late 80's early 90's although the bottom end seems to be plagued by crappy quality interiors, uncomfortable seats, and lack of features. I tend to buy used so I don't really know what it's like to have a econo-box. The downside with newer cars is all the extra safety equipment that adds a lot of weight but is required to add at least some protection from giant SUV's. I have nothing against old cars though as with other things they definitely don't make them like they use to.
My responses are below.
You'll forgive me for not knowing what you've said on many other threads - it seems like an unreasonable request. As far as I know I nor anyone else on this thread is objecting to your suggestion that users search the forum for similar topics - I'm confused as to why you feel the need to constantly repeat it. My initial post argued for sympathy on the part of those that are new - they are obviously oblivious to your idiosyncratic desires. I don't see how this negates the suggestion of doing a search.
As usual these are not relevant to my objection namely the way you disrespect others by implying they are @$$holes for posting topics you don't value. I'm not particularly concerned in arguing the details with you as to why the thread should have value to you or not. You like chocolate, I like mint-chocolate - but it should be noticed that your comments on the worthlessness of this thread are nothing more than a straw man.
You are conflating two separate things. As said above, implying people are @$$holes or whiners or using other ad hominem attacks against those who would post these topics is not entirely respectful is it, nor speculating on what type of person I am for objecting. If your @$$holes post was not intended to implicate the original speaker it would not be in this thread but rather a separate topic of its own. You made the attack for the very reason you believed it was relevant to the discourse at hand.
I never made any claims I wasn't talking about you, in fact I stated specifically that I was because you provided a clear precedent for some of the behavior I was describing. Notably it wasn't you alone that I was describing thus I adopted a more general tone as some of the material did not apply to you.
I had no preconceptions as to the response that I may or may not receive from you, however even if you could justify this belief I fail to see how that equates to any sort of crass behavior on my part. Actually I am quite surprised to find you so belligerently defending your remarks. I couldn't imagine many that would feel justified in calling others @$$holes, whiners, etc in such an unprovoked manner. Again maybe your expectations of those unfamiliar with your preferences for forum topics, discussions, etc is unreasonable.
It is true you did come to inform which I think is great but you also came to place some judgment about the thread - which I think is also fine - I just don't feel the manner in which you did it reflects the best interests of the forum as a whole. If I fail to see the big picture perhaps I'm not alone. In all seriousness maybe you should start a separate topic on the subject. Illustrate in detail what your picture is for this forum. So far at least in this thread your remarks have been simply to justify your disrespectful behavior towards others.
This is a red herring, clearly I have had no intent on changing your opinion to reflect mine with regard to the value of this thread. Pointing out your hypocrisies does not reflect an attempt to change your opinion to mine, simply it shows that your words are in conflict with your actions and because they are you may want to reconsider your position - whatever that may be. Your behavior, the way in which you expressed your disagreement, is what I labeled as crass and condescending. You would be deliberately obtuse to believe otherwise. To this end I believe it is the opinion of the forum itself that members not be disrespectful to others. I would believe that participating in such a forum acknowledges your acceptance of that.
Again you'll forgive me if I don't know what has been said in countless threads. You seem to confuse your idiosyncratic preferences ie. your idea of what's valuable with a statement of fact. As I've said before I don't care about your disagreement with the value of this thread only the way in which you object, however it is rather odd that your definition of value would embrace differences while your @$$holes post would like to quarantine them.
You'll forgive me for not knowing what you've said on many other threads - it seems like an unreasonable request. As far as I know I nor anyone else on this thread is objecting to your suggestion that users search the forum for similar topics - I'm confused as to why you feel the need to constantly repeat it. My initial post argued for sympathy on the part of those that are new - they are obviously oblivious to your idiosyncratic desires. I don't see how this negates the suggestion of doing a search.
As usual these are not relevant to my objection namely the way you disrespect others by implying they are @$$holes for posting topics you don't value. I'm not particularly concerned in arguing the details with you as to why the thread should have value to you or not. You like chocolate, I like mint-chocolate - but it should be noticed that your comments on the worthlessness of this thread are nothing more than a straw man.
You are conflating two separate things. As said above, implying people are @$$holes or whiners or using other ad hominem attacks against those who would post these topics is not entirely respectful is it, nor speculating on what type of person I am for objecting. If your @$$holes post was not intended to implicate the original speaker it would not be in this thread but rather a separate topic of its own. You made the attack for the very reason you believed it was relevant to the discourse at hand.
I never made any claims I wasn't talking about you, in fact I stated specifically that I was because you provided a clear precedent for some of the behavior I was describing. Notably it wasn't you alone that I was describing thus I adopted a more general tone as some of the material did not apply to you.
I had no preconceptions as to the response that I may or may not receive from you, however even if you could justify this belief I fail to see how that equates to any sort of crass behavior on my part. Actually I am quite surprised to find you so belligerently defending your remarks. I couldn't imagine many that would feel justified in calling others @$$holes, whiners, etc in such an unprovoked manner. Again maybe your expectations of those unfamiliar with your preferences for forum topics, discussions, etc is unreasonable.
It is true you did come to inform which I think is great but you also came to place some judgment about the thread - which I think is also fine - I just don't feel the manner in which you did it reflects the best interests of the forum as a whole. If I fail to see the big picture perhaps I'm not alone. In all seriousness maybe you should start a separate topic on the subject. Illustrate in detail what your picture is for this forum. So far at least in this thread your remarks have been simply to justify your disrespectful behavior towards others.
This is a red herring, clearly I have had no intent on changing your opinion to reflect mine with regard to the value of this thread. Pointing out your hypocrisies does not reflect an attempt to change your opinion to mine, simply it shows that your words are in conflict with your actions and because they are you may want to reconsider your position - whatever that may be. Your behavior, the way in which you expressed your disagreement, is what I labeled as crass and condescending. You would be deliberately obtuse to believe otherwise. To this end I believe it is the opinion of the forum itself that members not be disrespectful to others. I would believe that participating in such a forum acknowledges your acceptance of that.
Again you'll forgive me if I don't know what has been said in countless threads. You seem to confuse your idiosyncratic preferences ie. your idea of what's valuable with a statement of fact. As I've said before I don't care about your disagreement with the value of this thread only the way in which you object, however it is rather odd that your definition of value would embrace differences while your @$$holes post would like to quarantine them.
Yea, I know about the mileage measurement change for factory stickers. I jokingly told my wife that her car's mileage was going down last year when the new ratings were published.
Actually, I was basing my comments on observed real-world mileage. The published mileage ratings have always and continue to be unrealistic.
I've owned a lot of cars, and have a large family which has owned a large sampling of cars.
I'll list a couple of examples to illustrate:
My mother-in-laws Geo compact from the late 80's got her 60 MPG in combined highway and city driving when she had it.
My wife's current sub-compact Chevy Cobalt delivers 30 MPG on the highway and around 15 in town.
My old 1971 Ford F-250 Camper Special with a 390 CI V8 got 15 MPG in the city.
My old 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville with a massive 472 CI V8 got 25 MPG on the highway and around 16 to 17 MPG in town.
My old 1986 Chevy Caprice with a 305 CI V8 got 20 MPG on the highway and 16 to 17 in town.
And, I've had a small handful of cars with 6 cylinders that couldn't get over 13 MPG no matter what.
The sad thing, is that cars of similar class to the old Geo's only get half the mileage that the GEO did. Even sadder, is that some of the "Hybrid" econo cars still don't measure up to the old GEO in mileage. Not that I ever liked Geo's, but still.
It's sad that my wife's current sub-compact only delivers minor gains on the highway over my old land-yacht Cadillac which had a huge 472 engine. And, even worse is that in-town, the old Cadillac would deliver better economy.
I had a few small front-wheel drive compact / mid-size Oldsmobiles with 6 cylinders that got worse mileage than anything else I could compare it with.
It really is just sad that mileage seems to be in a downward trend while cars are getting smaller and lighter and supposedly more economical.
That any compact and subcompact car should deliver anything under 40 MPG on the highway and less than 20 MPG in town with a small 4-cylinder is unbelievable.
Sadly, that's what many newer cars are delivering. Somewhere between 13 in the city and 21 on the highway.
If I'm only going to get an average of 20 MPG, I want my land-yacht back.
I know this has steered a bit away from Mac's. But, just clarifying my statement.
I fully agree that the build quality and comfort decline is absolutely terrible though in the newer affordable cars.
Yeah, that definitely kicks the living **** out of a Mac Pro. a 1.5 GB video card?!
Always up for a lighthearted joke
Glad you all liked it 
Not again! I think I've seen just as many macpro waiting threads as I have seen people throw out the "straw man."
Can't we all just get along, and wait for our macpro's nicely?
Not again! I think I've seen just as many macpro waiting threads as I have seen people throw out the "straw man."
Can't we all just get along, and wait for our macpro's nicely?
Tell me about it man.
-Noodles.... sorry for saying the word ****** okay. GOD! I know that we are both civil enough to just let this go man.
By gones be by gones.
I believe there is a theorem that goes something like this: "Once a post reaches a certain length, then thereafter, the less the post is read and is merely skipped over by readers".
I believe there is a theorem that goes something like this: "Once a post reaches a certain length, then thereafter, the less the post is read and is merely skipped over by readers".
Not only that, but the longer the post is the more fluff it's usually filled with. The poster starts rambling on after about 300 words.
Yeah, that definitely kicks the living **** out of a Mac Pro. a 1.5 GB video card?!
Uh huh, that it does...for a price $$$, $2,540 for that card that retails for ~$3k, so not a bad deal
. Then if what Apple is reportedly waiting for, a large portion of the highest speed Xeon's @3.16Ghz, we see that adding 2 of those Quad cores to the Dell 7400 series will cost $2,860 more than the base model, dumbed down price on the 7400 of $2,396. What is really amusing is the base HD is a meager 80GB 7.2k SATA drive---no wonder it's included in the base model, they have to be joking, this is a high-end workstation w/a 80GB SATA drive???...do they even sell them in that size anymore?, and they don't even offer a Cheetah 15.5K 15k rpm SAS drive, which is available up to 300GB...for a price $$$.
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&oc=MLB141&s=biz
What was that you said? Umm, pass the bong around please
I don't seem to be able to keep my attention on what's going on here, what was the OP about again?I'm sorry, my brain hit 300 words of written text earlier in this post, I wasn't able to read all of yours therefor (classic internet ADD complex
).Uh huh, that it does...for a price $$$, $2,540 for that card that retails for ~$3k, so not a bad deal
Apple is reportedly waiting for, a large portion of the highest speed Xeon's @3.16Ghz, we see that adding 2 of those Quad cores to the Dell 7400 series will cost $2,860 more than the base model, dumbed down price on the 7400 of $2,396. What is really amusing is the base HD is a meager 80GB 7.2k SATA drive---no wonder it's included in the base model, they have to be joking, this is a high-end workstation w/a 80GB SATA drive???...do they even sell them in that size anymore?, and they don't even offer a Cheetah 15.5K 15k rpm SAS drive, which is available up to 300GB...for a price $$$.
I've never understood this sense that highend workstations should come standard with certain configurations rather than the basic requirements. If I were looking at the Dell, I'd be happy they were only offering me 1GB of memory and a cheap ass hard drive, rather than making me pay their price for 4GB (the minimum the UK pages offer) and a larger hard drive I may not even need, or could get cheaper. If it's one thing Dell do well it's choice.
And they have SAS drives (which as far as I know are 15K.5 cheetahs) so I'm not sure what you are talking about on that bit.
I can agree with that. When I ordered my Mac Pro, I couldn't get Apple to delete the keyboard and mouse from the package.
I'd rather have had the option of buying the Mac Pro with 256 MB of RAM as well so that I would have been able to get cheaper RAM in larger quantities from a 3rd Party instead of paying Apple's high price for the 1 GB it came with.
My system would have 4 GB of matched size memory modules now if I didn't have to buy it with 1 GB installed. And, yes, I know I could pull the 1 GB modules (2 x 512 MB) and get a matched set to go with my 2 GB (2 x 1 GB) modules, but that's a waste.
The cost to order the Mac Pro with 2 GB was more than the cost of ordering it with 1 GB and buying 2 GB of additional RAM from a 3rd party.
And, yes, I could get a set of modules to go with my 2 GB modules. But, then I'd have 5 GB with some still unmatched.
They should always offer a lower base level at a lower / reduced price and let you build up.