Mac Pro
- Thread starter Transcend
- Start date
- Status
I know you're just trying to get syadasti riled up, but can we work on this analogy a little? It's pretty far out thereRidemonkey said:
Let's try this instead: Santa Cruz should really release a lower-end spec'd Heckler. The Heckler has all the makings of a great bike since the frame is such a solid foundation, but it's just a little too far out of some people's price range.
Gee, would you look at that?
Ahh.. I see. So, because there's no alternative and Apple has you corporate guys backed into a corner, they should not try to expand their user base at all?spincrazy said:
Honestly, as hardcore bike riders, I'm pretty suprised at the argument that, "it's a pro machine. Consumers shouldn't want them."
What do you think you guys ride? Many of you are riding pro level racing equipment. Open your eyes... There's a huge power user market out there. Consumers who want professional equipment. And all it would take to tap into that is a couple choices in spec.
spincrazy said:
Why don't you understand that it could be a switch to Mac computer? ESPECIALLY now that boot camp has been thrown into the mix.
HAHAHA, you keep telling yourself that. I fyou say it enough times, you may even end up believing it!syadasti said:
RM and I both count as professional users who need power. We both happily pay extra for the OS and user experience.
Since Syadasti can't maintain one direction after he realizes himself that he doesn't have a point, he changed the focus of his lame argument to being that The Mac Pro is "too powerful" for some users. OF COURSE IT IS, and those users need not buy one. They can buy an iMac, or wait until they release a lesser model.binary visions said:I know you're just trying to get syadasti riled up, but can we work on this analogy a little? It's pretty far out there
Let's try this instead: Santa Cruz should really release a lower-end spec'd Heckler. The Heckler has all the makings of a great bike since the frame is such a solid foundation, but it's just a little too far out of some people's price range.
Gee, would you look at that?
I was simply pointing out that Apple targets a certain demographic of users, and for those users this is a great machine and worth every penny...just like a Modena is great for someone who values speed.
No it couldn't. It's too powerful and too expensive. You just said so.binary visions said:
:nonono:
How did this turn into an expand their market share debate? Sure, there are those that spend a bizillion dollars on equipment they do not realize to it's full potential in any and all markets. Moot.
Personally, not a corporate guy. I just need a WORKSTATION for what I do. At $300/hr every minute counts. And, that has as much to do with usability, reliability, compatibility, longevity, and upgradeability as it does for performance. A PC does not offer that for me and the majority of the art world.
Why does every Apple post turn into this? They are expensive, so is a Ventanna or a Titus. Apple has a mainstream market already in the Ipods. they have done quite well holding only a small portion of the personal computer market. People are still buying them after all these years. Something must be right. Don't want to pay so much? Don't buy one.
Personally, not a corporate guy. I just need a WORKSTATION for what I do. At $300/hr every minute counts. And, that has as much to do with usability, reliability, compatibility, longevity, and upgradeability as it does for performance. A PC does not offer that for me and the majority of the art world.
Why does every Apple post turn into this? They are expensive, so is a Ventanna or a Titus. Apple has a mainstream market already in the Ipods. they have done quite well holding only a small portion of the personal computer market. People are still buying them after all these years. Something must be right. Don't want to pay so much? Don't buy one.
We have a winner.
Turn into a market share debate? It started as one, right on the first page, and if you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to - just like I don't have to buy a Mac.
I'd hardly compare a botique company like Titus to an Apple. You're paying more for a good build quality, sure. I've got no problem with paying a premium for that case, those drive carriers, the well layed out RAM riser boards... But you're paying a LOT more for the expensive hardware that they chose to put in there.
Wouldn't it be silly if you bought a Titus, but the only way they'd let you have it is with a Chris King headset and hubset, thus increasing the price by 30% or more? Don't you think that would be limiting the number of people they're selling to?
And why so defensive, anyway? Syadasti has a tendancy to simply bash Apple products, but I'm not bashing them. Quite the opposite: I'm actually mildly irked that they priced this beautiful piece of hardware out of my range. So I'm saying that, for the simple option of a processor choice, they could have had people like me - the power users who want high end equipment.
I'd hardly compare a botique company like Titus to an Apple
. You're paying more for a good build quality, sure. I've got no problem with paying a premium for that case, those drive carriers, the well layed out RAM riser boards... But you're paying a LOT more for the expensive hardware that they chose to put in there.Wouldn't it be silly if you bought a Titus, but the only way they'd let you have it is with a Chris King headset and hubset, thus increasing the price by 30% or more? Don't you think that would be limiting the number of people they're selling to?
And why so defensive, anyway? Syadasti has a tendancy to simply bash Apple products, but I'm not bashing them. Quite the opposite: I'm actually mildly irked that they priced this beautiful piece of hardware out of my range. So I'm saying that, for the simple option of a processor choice, they could have had people like me - the power users who want high end equipment.
The problem with your titus and apple example, is that the core of this machine, the processors, are much mroe than a fancy headset. They ARE the machine. So it's more like comparing an apple to the titus itself.binary visions said:Turn into a market share debate? It started as one, right on the first page, and if you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to - just like I don't have to buy a Mac.
I'd hardly compare a botique company like Titus to an Apple
Wouldn't it be silly if you bought a Titus, but the only way they'd let you have it is with a Chris King headset and hubset, thus increasing the price by 30% or more? Don't you think that would be limiting the number of people they're selling to?
And why so defensive, anyway? Syadasti has a tendancy to simply bash Apple products, but I'm not bashing them. Quite the opposite: I'm actually mildly irked that they priced this beautiful piece of hardware out of my range. So I'm saying that, for the simple option of a processor choice, they could have had people like me - the power users who want high end equipment.
Some people need the power, that is what it comes down to. Those of you who don't sure seem bitter about it.
This was a DEVELOPER'S CONFERENCE. They released the machine they intend on having DEVELOPERS use. I am not sure why this is so hard for so many people to grasp? This wasn't a consumer show, no one really expected them to release any consumer products. It'd be like Dodge releasing a new supercar at the international truck and hunting show or something.
The lower end machine will probably show up in Paris. Then you can all stop complaining.
I agree with you in theory BV, however if Apple is doing well selling the higher end models, it may not make any sense for them to offer more models. It may be that the cost of developing addional models with lesser profit margins isn't prohibitive, and Apple may be better off just selling higher margin machines to a select audience.
The less powerful machines will likely draw a less professional user, and thus might be more expensive to support, warranty, etc. and in the long run the additional sales might just not be worth it.
Higher sales volume doesn't always equate to greater profit...and none of us have the metrics to judge whether a lesser model would be good for the company...even if it might arguably be better for you
If it makes sense for them I'm sure you'll see one on the market soon.
The less powerful machines will likely draw a less professional user, and thus might be more expensive to support, warranty, etc. and in the long run the additional sales might just not be worth it.
Higher sales volume doesn't always equate to greater profit...and none of us have the metrics to judge whether a lesser model would be good for the company...even if it might arguably be better for you
If it makes sense for them I'm sure you'll see one on the market soon.
That's an excellent point (and, might I add, the only good one made so far - the rest of them have been equivalent to, "Apple can do no wrong, and their target market will pay for them" when that doesn't address my posts in the slightest).Ridemonkey said:
They are selling less powerful machines, though, in the Mac Minis and iMacs.
Ahh well, we'll see what comes down the pipes from Apple.
I suppose I meant somewhere between an iMac and the Mac Pro...there's quite a gap.
I don't think anyone is arguing Apple can do no wrong...in general the argument is that there are people who need the extra processing power and prefer the Apple experience, and are willing to pay for it, and that doesn't make them stupid, or gullible as Syadasti would have you believe. To them it is worth it.
Syadasti's only concern seems to be finding the best deal on hardware, and hardware is only part of the equation.
I don't think anyone is arguing Apple can do no wrong...in general the argument is that there are people who need the extra processing power and prefer the Apple experience, and are willing to pay for it, and that doesn't make them stupid, or gullible as Syadasti would have you believe. To them it is worth it.
Syadasti's only concern seems to be finding the best deal on hardware, and hardware is only part of the equation.
It seems the only Mac person with some knowledge about the difference between a Woodcrest Xeon and a Core 2 Duo system is Transcend - that is the typical differences between a workstation and regular PC
To put it in simple biking terms - it is the difference between a Specialized Enduro and an Sworks Enduro. Big deal the Sworks has a few M5 tubes which save you 1/4-1/2 lbs. The performance differences is not important for all but the highest level or special needs riders.
In more detail:
Xeon Workstation motherboard - usually has better power setup - say 8 phase and 8 layer motherboard, workstation chipset supports buffered (ECC) memory and requires different packaging on the CPU to support this - this translates to extra stability in less than ideal conditions
Prosumer motherboard - varying quality 3-8 phase power, 4-8 layer motherboard, may or may not support ECC memory
CPU - may have more cache which helps for certain types of computing tasks - more doesn't help in all situations. See the identical X2/Operton CPU for example a CPU with half the cache per core is only ONE speed ranking below a CPU - ie AMD X2 4200 - 512kb/core AMD X2 4400 - 1MB/core.
PSU - workstation usually need more power (not true these days with gamers running up to 4 videocards) and cleaner power (separate rails).
Anyhow it comes down to the fact you are probably paying around $1000 more than you need to - you could use that grand for more memory which would make a bigger difference for Photoshopers or other low-mid level workstation users.
These are facts and the real world differences. Don't talk about what you think you need if you don't even understand how they differ, do or do need fit your needs, and perform in the real world.
Its as annoying as listening to some newbie rider talking about if they upgraded this or that or had this frame it would make a huge difference in their riding...NOT
To put it in simple biking terms - it is the difference between a Specialized Enduro and an Sworks Enduro. Big deal the Sworks has a few M5 tubes which save you 1/4-1/2 lbs. The performance differences is not important for all but the highest level or special needs riders.
In more detail:
Xeon Workstation motherboard - usually has better power setup - say 8 phase and 8 layer motherboard, workstation chipset supports buffered (ECC) memory and requires different packaging on the CPU to support this - this translates to extra stability in less than ideal conditions
Prosumer motherboard - varying quality 3-8 phase power, 4-8 layer motherboard, may or may not support ECC memory
CPU - may have more cache which helps for certain types of computing tasks - more doesn't help in all situations. See the identical X2/Operton CPU for example a CPU with half the cache per core is only ONE speed ranking below a CPU - ie AMD X2 4200 - 512kb/core AMD X2 4400 - 1MB/core.
PSU - workstation usually need more power (not true these days with gamers running up to 4 videocards) and cleaner power (separate rails).
Anyhow it comes down to the fact you are probably paying around $1000 more than you need to - you could use that grand for more memory which would make a bigger difference for Photoshopers or other low-mid level workstation users.
These are facts and the real world differences. Don't talk about what you think you need if you don't even understand how they differ, do or do need fit your needs, and perform in the real world.
Its as annoying as listening to some newbie rider talking about if they upgraded this or that or had this frame it would make a huge difference in their riding...NOT
Yeah...we all get it...only high end users will benefit from the difference in technology...that's who the computer is designed for, and that's who will buy it...again...what's your point?
Yeah I get. You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.Ridemonkey said:
First post "Mac Pro
Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?"
Your first post was turning it into a debate. That aside, I wasn't directing my comments at you specifically BV, just saying.
Syadasti, no one cares - (You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.) See my post above. It's not about Gates vs Jobs nor marketing, what's better nor what's not. Paying as you say "1000s more" than need be is also moot as all of the things offered by everyone else do not come in this particular package. It costs what it costs. Is it exhorbinant? Yes, probably. Am I still getting one among the other millions? Mos Def.
Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?"
Your first post was turning it into a debate. That aside, I wasn't directing my comments at you specifically BV, just saying.
Syadasti, no one cares - (You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.) See my post above. It's not about Gates vs Jobs nor marketing, what's better nor what's not. Paying as you say "1000s more" than need be is also moot as all of the things offered by everyone else do not come in this particular package. It costs what it costs. Is it exhorbinant? Yes, probably. Am I still getting one among the other millions? Mos Def.
Anyone look to see what Dell wants to upgrade a Precision 690 from 2GB to 4GB of 667Mhz ECC RAM?
Looks to me like they want an extra $820.
edit: A Dell workstation with same processors and 1GB of memory and a 250GB hard drive looks like it'll run you about $3200.
Looks to me like they want an extra $820.
edit: A Dell workstation with same processors and 1GB of memory and a 250GB hard drive looks like it'll run you about $3200.
You sit here all day and beat your geek chest spouting every stat you can recall from PC Magazine but you fail to ever make a coherent point.syadasti said:
Even in your one paragraph post you can't keep it together...you start by proposing that I don't know the difference between a workstation and a PC, then you trail off to the speed of G5s, then you move on to talking about marketing....the validity of these random statements aside, what do they have to do with BV's stance that Macs are overpriced?
I'm going to keep this short and simple so you don't get sidetracked again.
Non-Apple users always go off because they believe they can get equal performance from non-apple machines for less money. They are right. If this was 1998 they would have a very strong argument. But it's not. It's 2006 and the reason most people prefer Mac is not because they think it's the fastest machine on the market, but because they prefer OSX and all that it brings to the table, to the alternatives. Period.
If you could buy OSX and all mac software, and put it on any machine you wanted natively you would see a lot of Mac users running OSX on alternative hardware. But it's not, and until it is, people who prefer OSX will keep buying Apples regardless of any difference in price in hardware because it's worth it to them to be able to run the software.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
spincrazy said:
The real creative breakthrough one in million work is done on custom software and hardware setups. Hollywood also uses more exotic high-end hardware like SGI's - see ILM. The cutting edge often has custom developed software running in some flavor of *nix.
Macs are not the bleeding edge or high-end, never have been. NT stuff isn't the either.
What point are you addressing? That doesn't appear to fit in anywhere in this thread. More random facts to no end.syadasti said:
Here lemme try: I used a computer once that had a dirty mouse, it didn't track very well. My TV has picture-in-picture, it lets me watch two channels at once. I like ketchup on my Kraft Dinner for a little extra tang.
The point is BV was right. A great number of users don't need the only current option for a high-end mac.Ridemonkey said:
Apple would have sold much more if they offered stocked a second prosumer motherboard and a few Core 2 Duos for a thousand dollars less.
Yeah...no one is disputing that. Welcome to 2 pages ago.syadasti said:
as one who has never used OSX, what advantages does it bring to the average user that winXP doesn't?
?And? How is that in reference to what I stated or what this 'debate' is about? This is a thread about a new Mac workstation. That's it. Are you next going to post all the specs of the hardware, software, etc. that NASA uses to make the shuttle launch? I'm sure it isn't run on a Mac either..syadasti said:
You make yourself a huge target with all your I hate Apple retoric and no one will take you seriously because we/they don't care how much you know, how much we do not know, etc. You don't like Apple. Why jump in every thread about them and spout nonsense? In addition, you bounce around like a coked up gerbil in a drug addicts asshole with your arguments.
a) stable, no virus/malware to speak ofnarlus said:
b) nice applications with sane user interfaces (apple and their developers are not fond of ugly grey dialog boxes and their human interface guidelines are well written)
c) things just work, for the most part. my parents use their iMacs to edit photos, video, post websites, for instance, and i had remarkably little to do with it!
d) elegant hardware -- i brought in my mac mini to make a presentation, and the guy helping set up the projector was all, "where's your computer?" (the mini is 6.5" x 6.5" x 2")
This thread makes my face hurt.
Okay...I just want an explanation.
Why is everyone still worshipping their Apples/Macs? To me, Apple is now just a PC company with their own operating system (after the switch to x86), which can be easily hacked to run on a non-Apple machine. Not only are they just a PC company now, but they're a ridiculously priced PC company (800 bones for a gig of RAM comes to mind).
So, why? Is it the packaging? The faux-liberal hipster trend that Apple reeks of? Solely the OS (Which doesn't seem like a valid argument, given the avenue of running it on a "standard" PC)? I mean, many people who swear by Mac/Apple are very technically knowledgeable, so it just doesn't make sense to me. Am I just too practical?
TRADITTIOOOOOON?
Okay...I just want an explanation.
Why is everyone still worshipping their Apples/Macs? To me, Apple is now just a PC company with their own operating system (after the switch to x86), which can be easily hacked to run on a non-Apple machine. Not only are they just a PC company now, but they're a ridiculously priced PC company (800 bones for a gig of RAM comes to mind).
So, why? Is it the packaging? The faux-liberal hipster trend that Apple reeks of? Solely the OS (Which doesn't seem like a valid argument, given the avenue of running it on a "standard" PC)? I mean, many people who swear by Mac/Apple are very technically knowledgeable, so it just doesn't make sense to me. Am I just too practical?
TRADITTIOOOOOON?
This thread is about the Mac Pro - new hardware from Apple. Nobody has mentioned Leopard. Nobody has said Transcend should buy this/that OS or hardware instead. Its centered around why Apple is offering some high to mid-end hardware specs for low to mid-end workstation applications - both will give computing power in a similar league for most uses.Ridemonkey said:
The fact is that PC and Macs run on the same hardware now, so hardware choices can be questioned since Apple can pick from the various Intel offerings right now - there are only small differences in the motherboards to separate them.
Transcend needed a desktop and he had a good EDU discount and some money to play with as a individual - thats ok. But Apple is in business to move product and make a profit - spec the mid-low end workstation appropriately makes a lot more sense to hit the sweet spot.
As for the others saying they are going to run out and buy this or its perfectly fine for professional useage right now, its not. In the business world (any business, not just corporate), this product would not be sound move for a organization. Buying brand new hardware architecture (for apple) and software product with millions of lines ported code and lack of many third party apps/drivers with proper ports would just never fly as smart move. Just as many corporate users stayed on one platform - say 98 or 2000 for years after XP was out, so did many creative professionals stick with OS 9 and legacy apps for years. Any firm with G5s will sit on their mature PPC code, more mature OSX PPC and mature hardware for a year or two (or some cases more) until the Intel product is ripe for professional applications - early adoption=punishment - unpolished hardware, software, less options, and higher prices. Leave the beta testing to the lower end users when the bottom line is the bottom line.
correct, but bless Transcend for buying now so they can get the bugs out and lower the price
Similar/same hardware yes. Tech no. The good part of Apple keeping their technology is that the quality and integrity of the product has remained high. We can't say that about the PC. The rest of your comments however are duely noted.
Similar/same hardware yes. Tech no. The good part of Apple keeping their technology is that the quality and integrity of the product has remained high. We can't say that about the PC. The rest of your comments however are duely noted.
You mean software, there are no significant differences otherwise when spec'd the same hardware-wise (yeah there are 100s of PC makers so quality varies tremendously if you don't know how to choose a good brand and decent product line/spec to buy - Apple's reasoning for stopping clones years ago). As far as best mainstream OS product mix of UI and software technology, then yes, OSX.spincrazy said:
i've never have had a virus attack in 10 years or so of running MS machines.spincrazy said:
ah...blue screens can suck. have had one major issue which forced a re-install and hardware upgrade (router needed configuring, and i loaded a driver which was written for '98 not xp...bad things. also, i've had strange behaviour w/ my CF card reader from time to time, so after i use it i remove it).spincrazy said:
uh, i gotta say MS isn't the easiest to network, but it's not like it doesn't work once you get it going.spincrazy said:
what does this mean?spincrazy said:
we're talking software, not hardware, right?spincrazy said:
Congratulations on showing your ignorance. You win today's stupid award!blue said:This thread makes my face hurt.
Okay...I just want an explanation.
Why is everyone still worshipping their Apples/Macs? To me, Apple is now just a PC company with their own operating system (after the switch to x86), which can be easily hacked to run on a non-Apple machine. Not only are they just a PC company now, but they're a ridiculously priced PC company (800 bones for a gig of RAM comes to mind).
So, why? Is it the packaging? The faux-liberal hipster trend that Apple reeks of? Solely the OS (Which doesn't seem like a valid argument, given the avenue of running it on a "standard" PC)? I mean, many people who swear by Mac/Apple are very technically knowledgeable, so it just doesn't make sense to me. Am I just too practical?
TRADITTIOOOOOON?
Read the thread before you post anymore, specifically with regards to overpriced etc.
Congratulations on not explaining jack **** and being an asshat to boot?
I'm curious. I want to know if the Apple-luv is more than N8 loving the GOP, but clearly, with responses like the above, it's the latter.
I'm curious. I want to know if the Apple-luv is more than N8 loving the GOP, but clearly, with responses like the above, it's the latter.
Come into a thread and start posting stupid, ignorant comments, and you are sure to get stupid answers.
Or perhaps cutting through the stupid posturing by the Mac lovers and the Mac haters is too much for you?Transcend said:
It's fact that Apples and the rest of the PC world are on a level playing field technically. So why do you like them so much?
But wait, Fraser has defaulted to being an asshat to anyone who remotely questions the reasoning behind his posts.
Typical.
Actually, what's typical is your assinine posts in a thread that lead to you bitching and whining that no one is nice to you.blue said:
Yes, it was about the Mac Pro for about one post until it was turned into another "Apples are over-priced thread", and that's been a part of the discussion since.syadasti said:
Agreed.syadasti said:
You're mixing the requirements of single professionals with that of larger companies. Does it make sense for a large company to adopt new, relatively untested technology in great volume? Of course not.syadasti said:
However, an individual professional(Transcend) can adopt that same technology at a much lesser risk because it need only work for him and his workflow...not that of a whole organization.
I will reiterate my central point here so it's not overlooked: You can not compare what is good for big business to what is good for individual professionals. The negative aspects of early adoption have far less impact on individuals than they would on a large company, while the positive aspects remain the same.
- Status