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.
Why do so many here *discourage* others from buying a Mac Pro?
- Thread starter DeepCobalt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That isn't his point. 8GB DIMMs are already available and 16GB DIMMs will likely be available for order next week. 6GB is not going to be a memory module size with current technology as it isn't a power of two.
Yeah, but 6GB DIMMs are idiotic when 8 and 16GB are already planned. NAND increases in size by powers of two.
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.
Haven't you ever wondered why you don't see any sizes of SD cards other than these?
Ok 8GB DIMMS then. Either way their coming out with bigger DIMMS.
If anything with tripple channels with the nehalems, I think 6GB DIMMS would make more sense though.
Why do so many here *discourage* others from buying a Mac Pro?
Nah, that's just a conspiracy theory maaaaan!
I've heard it's a bunch of people in tin foil hats that work for Microsoft & Dell, and they invade the site on a daily basis, with their wild keyboard fingers and "Caaaarrrraaaazy ideas" and they just want to keep dumbing the system, maaaaan...
inho
Nah, that's just a conspiracy theory maaaaan!
I've heard it's a bunch of people in tin foil hats that work for Microsoft & Dell, and they invade the site on a daily basis, with their wild keyboard fingers and "Caaaarrrraaaazy ideas" and they just want to keep dumbing the system, maaaaan...
inho
Ok 8GB DIMMS then. Either way their coming out with bigger DIMMS.
If anything with tripple channels with the nehalems, I think 6GB DIMMS would make more sense though.
jjahshik, I think you're getting confused here. Memory comes in powers of two, so you'll see DIMMs in 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, etc. like has been said above. The triple channel Nehalems mean that memory should be installed in groups of three, so the 2GBs or 4GBs or whatever should be installed in threes to get total memory configurations of 2GB x 3 = 6GB, 4GB x 3 = 12GB, 8GB x 3 = 24GB, etc. So you'll never see 6GB DIMMs regardless of chip architecture.
I see myself in a lot of these posts - someone who came from the PC world and was USED to a desktop system that's fully expandable - RAM, hard drives, DVD drives...
When I was looking at my options, I said, "Ok Mac Mini, cool, but way underpowered and incredibly difficult (but at least *possible*) to upgrade."
Next the iMac - "Well yeah, technically it'll do most if not all of what I need, but I'm not comfortable with the all-in-one design...what if the screen dies, then I'm without a computer for a couple of days minimum - not cool."
Technically as a consumer and not expecting to use the Mac for "pro" reasons, those are my "only" options.
As a power user though (and even on the PC I did this), I keep on average 6-8 programs open at any one time - at least one of those apps being Firefox with...well, at the moment I have 11 tabs open, but usually no less than 7 or 8.
One thing I can say about the Mac in general is that at *least* the programs tend to be smaller and more efficient than Windows programs, but I still average using 4-6 gigs of RAM, which is why I have 10, and am considering getting an extra 4 just for the safety factor.
If Apple would offer a $1500 xMac, that's upgradeable like the Mac Pro, I most likely would've bought that instead. And I can't see how it could possibly cannibalize Mac Pro sales - Pros know they need those high-end XEON processors for processor intensive work. Set up the xMac with an i7 chipset with an option for 4 ($1500) or 8 ($1800-$2000) cores, and it would seem to clearly delineate the two computers.
If anything, the xMac *could* eat into the sales of the higher end iMacs, but even there, you have the people who want the *OPTION* (I don't think Apple knows what this word means) to choose what screen they want. Not everyone wants a glossy, color-rich computing experience. Some of us (like photographers, retouchers, etc) want matte screens so we can accurately see how an image looks so we can properly color-correct / retouch / edit it.
As Blue Velvet also said, you should always buy the best you can afford at the time - the better and more powerful system you can afford, the longer you can keep it around and make incremental upgrades.
I've had my system for just over a year now, and with the state of technology now, I can see myself owning this machine for at *least* another 3-4 years. Certainly Snow Leopard should help to take advantage of more cores during that time, and when Adobe finally rewrites Photoshop CS5 in Cocoa (and full 64 bit), it will just be that much better.
And when I sell it, I should be able to make back enough that I can at that time afford whatever the newest Mac Pro is, and go on from there
To me, or hopefully to most of us stuck in between the iMac <-> Mac Pro decision, the Mac Pro is the better *LONG TERM* value
When I was looking at my options, I said, "Ok Mac Mini, cool, but way underpowered and incredibly difficult (but at least *possible*) to upgrade."
Next the iMac - "Well yeah, technically it'll do most if not all of what I need, but I'm not comfortable with the all-in-one design...what if the screen dies, then I'm without a computer for a couple of days minimum - not cool."
Technically as a consumer and not expecting to use the Mac for "pro" reasons, those are my "only" options.
As a power user though (and even on the PC I did this), I keep on average 6-8 programs open at any one time - at least one of those apps being Firefox with...well, at the moment I have 11 tabs open, but usually no less than 7 or 8.
One thing I can say about the Mac in general is that at *least* the programs tend to be smaller and more efficient than Windows programs, but I still average using 4-6 gigs of RAM, which is why I have 10, and am considering getting an extra 4 just for the safety factor.
If Apple would offer a $1500 xMac, that's upgradeable like the Mac Pro, I most likely would've bought that instead. And I can't see how it could possibly cannibalize Mac Pro sales - Pros know they need those high-end XEON processors for processor intensive work. Set up the xMac with an i7 chipset with an option for 4 ($1500) or 8 ($1800-$2000) cores, and it would seem to clearly delineate the two computers.
If anything, the xMac *could* eat into the sales of the higher end iMacs, but even there, you have the people who want the *OPTION* (I don't think Apple knows what this word means) to choose what screen they want. Not everyone wants a glossy, color-rich computing experience. Some of us (like photographers, retouchers, etc) want matte screens so we can accurately see how an image looks so we can properly color-correct / retouch / edit it.
As Blue Velvet also said, you should always buy the best you can afford at the time - the better and more powerful system you can afford, the longer you can keep it around and make incremental upgrades.
I've had my system for just over a year now, and with the state of technology now, I can see myself owning this machine for at *least* another 3-4 years. Certainly Snow Leopard should help to take advantage of more cores during that time, and when Adobe finally rewrites Photoshop CS5 in Cocoa (and full 64 bit), it will just be that much better.
And when I sell it, I should be able to make back enough that I can at that time afford whatever the newest Mac Pro is, and go on from there
To me, or hopefully to most of us stuck in between the iMac <-> Mac Pro decision, the Mac Pro is the better *LONG TERM* value
steve ballmer?
meaning, only solution for the mac pro to make more sense would be to make it 12slots
edit: hehe, or better wait for the quad channel and dont redesign case again. 2x4 ftw!
You don't have to be a porn editor to require a Mac Pro. Myself, I think the iMac is an ugly piece of crap, there's no room for multiple hard drives or multiple video cards. Pretty much every damn thing you'd want to do requires an external peripheral (ew). I don't want to have to have external hard drives, or external sound cards, etc..
Ya know what I mean?
Ya know what I mean?
I would think an Enthusiast would buy one anyway, and not even ask about it.
That's what I did. Needed a new computer. Had a powerbook for a while wanted a mac. Mini and iMac would have been good enough, but like the construction quality and expandibility of the Pro. So I bought a refurb quad.
Have loved every minute of it and changed out the optical drive, CPUs, etc. It's an incredibly well built machine when compared to most PCs. I mean it really lives up to the Pro billing. I've also started working with more "pro" apps since I have the machine now...it's been tons of fun.
If you can dedicate the space and funds for it, it is the Mac to own.
Memory prices dropping
Not sure if this helps anyone, but OWC dropped their price on 4gb dimms for the new Mac Pro to $225 or so each. 6 sticks run $1399, which is fantastic compared to other vendors. I am sure that when the Nehalem Xeon Launch takes place on Monday, the prices will continue to drop, and we may even see 8GB dimms released soon. The only issue is the approx. $2000 per dimm price for these which means forget about it. Hope this helps.
Peace,
Noushy
BTW, anyone know if the single proc Mac Pro machines can use these 4gb dimms?
Not sure if this helps anyone, but OWC dropped their price on 4gb dimms for the new Mac Pro to $225 or so each. 6 sticks run $1399, which is fantastic compared to other vendors. I am sure that when the Nehalem Xeon Launch takes place on Monday, the prices will continue to drop, and we may even see 8GB dimms released soon. The only issue is the approx. $2000 per dimm price for these which means forget about it. Hope this helps.
Peace,
Noushy
BTW, anyone know if the single proc Mac Pro machines can use these 4gb dimms?
Official Nehalem Xeon Launch
Supposedly the official launch date for Intel is Mar 29th. Not sure how this makes sense, I guess that on Monday they will be available to all. Right now the only company that is selling Xeon-EP processors (ie. 55XX) and (35XX single proc solutions) is Apple. Intel sort of gave them an advanced sell date, but only on workstations. The rest of the world, ie. Dell, HP, Sun, IBM, etc. will be selling them on Monday. Dell's workstation is the 7400 right now, it will be the 7500 with the dual Nehalem-EP chips. And out of giggles, I priced a Xeon 3.0 1600 fsb, 16gb of ram (8 x 2gb), 4 x 1tb internal raid with raid card, and came up with 11,500 or so. I have the same config, and it cost me half that almost in a Mac Pro (2008 model). Who said Apple is more expensive. Even my new Mac Pro (2009) 2.93 8 core cost less. Not sure who Dell is kidding. That config had dual quadro 4800 (cost 2900), my 2008 Mac Pro had the Quadro 5600 FX at same list price.
Peace,
Noushy
Supposedly the official launch date for Intel is Mar 29th. Not sure how this makes sense, I guess that on Monday they will be available to all. Right now the only company that is selling Xeon-EP processors (ie. 55XX) and (35XX single proc solutions) is Apple. Intel sort of gave them an advanced sell date, but only on workstations. The rest of the world, ie. Dell, HP, Sun, IBM, etc. will be selling them on Monday. Dell's workstation is the 7400 right now, it will be the 7500 with the dual Nehalem-EP chips. And out of giggles, I priced a Xeon 3.0 1600 fsb, 16gb of ram (8 x 2gb), 4 x 1tb internal raid with raid card, and came up with 11,500 or so. I have the same config, and it cost me half that almost in a Mac Pro (2008 model). Who said Apple is more expensive. Even my new Mac Pro (2009) 2.93 8 core cost less. Not sure who Dell is kidding. That config had dual quadro 4800 (cost 2900), my 2008 Mac Pro had the Quadro 5600 FX at same list price.
Peace,
Noushy
I do understand the need for a mid level Mac, but this new line up is the perfect line up for the Pro users and mid level users alike. The Pro users should get the Octo because of expandability of the memory, and for the average users that needs the extra power and stability they should get a quad.
I guess I would define an average user as someone who dabbles in photoshop, encodes their home movies in imovie, basically someone who doesn't use the computer as a major source of income.
I guess I would define an average user as someone who dabbles in photoshop, encodes their home movies in imovie, basically someone who doesn't use the computer as a major source of income.
i just purchased a 2.66 Quad
some people seem obsessed with the need to be a "pro" if you want to buy a MP... i like OSX for many reasons and i'm sure a MBP or iMac would have been enough for most of what i do (i'm using a 12"PB at the moment )
so... if you don't want a laptop, you don't like the iMac, the mini isn't enough and you want to use OSX then buy a MP.
at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference and what you can afford.
the bottom line is... if you want t a MP and can afford it.... buy it
some people seem obsessed with the need to be a "pro" if you want to buy a MP... i like OSX for many reasons and i'm sure a MBP or iMac would have been enough for most of what i do (i'm using a 12"PB at the moment
)so... if you don't want a laptop, you don't like the iMac, the mini isn't enough and you want to use OSX then buy a MP.
at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference and what you can afford.
the bottom line is... if you want t a MP and can afford it.... buy it
If you want a MacPro you'll just get one anyway. You will probably toss up the high end iMac and ask for advice, however if you need (or even think you'll need) the extra CPU power or expandability, then you'll get the MacPro.
I doubt the marjority of people here on the forums that own MacPros use it at 100% capacity, however who cares, it's their money, they can do what they wish with it.
If someone came to me and asked do I think they should buy a ferrari, i'm not going to say "No you shouldn't buy it, you can't drive it at the maximum speed all day long, so it's a waste. You should just buy a KIA, it will do the same job."
I doubt the marjority of people here on the forums that own MacPros use it at 100% capacity, however who cares, it's their money, they can do what they wish with it.
If someone came to me and asked do I think they should buy a ferrari, i'm not going to say "No you shouldn't buy it, you can't drive it at the maximum speed all day long, so it's a waste. You should just buy a KIA, it will do the same job."
Another factor that I considered in buying a Mac Pro was how easy it is to add drives. Mount the drive in the sled and slide that sucker in. I could not believe it was that easy.
I remember adding a second drive in an old HP desktop and having to give up because the computer simply could not recognize the drive even though the jumper settings were correct.
I remember adding a second drive in an old HP desktop and having to give up because the computer simply could not recognize the drive even though the jumper settings were correct.
dont worry, Quad is not THAT proi just purchased a 2.66 Quad
some people seem obsessed with the need to be a "pro" if you want to buy a MP... i like OSX for many reasons and i'm sure a MBP or iMac would have been enough for most of what i do (i'm using a 12"PB at the moment
so... if you don't want a laptop, you don't like the iMac, the mini isn't enough and you want to use OSX then buy a MP.
at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference and what you can afford.
the bottom line is... if you want t a MP and can afford it.... buy it
nah, just kidding, enjoy your mac
dont worry, Quad is not THAT pro
nah, just kidding, enjoy your mac
my semi-pro will have class lol
