or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › OS X 10.8.3 beta supports AMD Radeon 7000 drivers, hinting at Apple's new Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X 10.8.3 beta supports AMD Radeon 7000 drivers, hinting at Apple's new Mac Pro - Page 4

post #121 of 201

I can handle losing one optical drive but I hope it keeps one.  I know Apple foresees an end to and indeed wants to kill the CD and DVD but I'm not ready to make that sacrifice.  iTunes doesn't yet offer CD quality audio and if I buy a PC game chances are it'll come on a DVD.  If you take Blu-Ray into consideration, optical media still has a longer life than Steve tried to have us believe.

 

One of the things I most love about the Mac Pro are that everything is internal, allowing for a very clean workstation.  I don't have external drives and Apple's cheap-looking afterthought of an external CD/DVD clogging up my desk.  If I've got a big tower for performance and heat-dissipation adding an optical drive doesn't make a huge difference.

post #122 of 201
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post
…I'm not ready to make that sacrifice.

 

So don't! Grab an 18x external. Or even, as you said, a Blu-ray drive. Those are 8x now, right? I actually have a 6x in my Mac Pro.

 

"Wait, you?!"

 

Yeah, it's a BD-RE/HD DVD-ROM drive. Really I got it for the latter half of that, but I've lightly used it for both.


One of the things I most love about the Mac Pro are that everything is internal, allowing for a very clean workstation.

 

When the new model comes out, I think you'll feel firsthand what I said earlier about "current Mac Pro owners will hate it".

 

This thing won't have optical drives, and it's absolutely not going to have FireWire. I'm thinking at least four Thunderbolt to make up for that, four USB 3, and then whatever else. 

 

I agree, though; I like that my setup is only screen, tower, keyboard, trackpad. I'd take an all-in-one over that, but you can't fit a Xeon behind a screen without it exploding.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #123 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


 

This thing won't have optical drives, and it's absolutely not going to have FireWire. I'm thinking at least four Thunderbolt to make up for that, four USB 3, and then whatever else. 

USB3 is going to displace the use of firewire more than thunderbolt. Firewire always had some points of superiority over usb, but the sustained speed should significantly outpace FW800. I'm not sure what meaningful advantages would be maintained by firewire outside of older devices. I'm not sure intel has any thunderbolt chips that currently support 4 ports out.

 

 

Quote:
I agree, though; I like that my setup is only screen, tower, keyboard, trackpad. I'd take an all-in-one over that, but you can't fit a Xeon behind a screen without it exploding.

I find them a bit limiting in some ways, but display technology continues to homogenize, so perhaps that will change.

post #124 of 201
1. Who here has replaced a faulty Xeon CPU?
2. Who here has upgraded the CPU in their MP?

Even though it's possible I've never come across someone that actually did either/both.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #125 of 201
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
1. Who here has replaced a faulty Xeon CPU?
2. Who here has upgraded the CPU in their MP?
Even though it's possible I've never come across someone that actually did either/both.

 

I've only heard of doing it, myself. I remember reading tutorials about getting into the 2006 model, seeing blood on the hands of the guy tearing it down as he cut himself multiple times getting into the case… lol.gif

 

And OWC offers a daughterboard exchange program, but has anyone even done that?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #126 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

1. Who here has replaced a faulty Xeon CPU?
2. Who here has upgraded the CPU in their MP?
Even though it's possible I've never come across someone that actually did either/both.


Macrumors has a number of posts on that. It seems like a number of people with 2009 mac pros went for 6 core upgrades. When they first came out those cpus were around $1100 on newegg. A year later with no Sandy Bridge E in sight they were just under $600 while the 6 core mac pro remained $3800 minimum. I would personally call that an unusual circumstance. As for faulty cpus. I've seen dead logic boards, although I haven't personally seen any in mac pros. I've never seen a dead cpu.

post #127 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Macrumors has a number of posts on that. It seems like a number of people with 2009 mac pros went for 6 core upgrades. When they first came out those cpus were around $1100 on newegg. A year later with no Sandy Bridge E in sight they were just under $600 while the 6 core mac pro remained $3800 minimum. I would personally call that an unusual circumstance. As for faulty cpus. I've seen dead logic boards, although I haven't personally seen any in mac pros. I've never seen a dead cpu.

It happens very infrequently on Dell equipment anyways. That would be either the logic board or CPU going dead. With modern CPUs it is much much harder to kill them by overheating, so that failure mode is not common anymore. I've heard of Mac Pros going dead it is not however a common thing.
post #128 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So don't! Grab an 18x external. Or even, as you said, a Blu-ray drive. Those are 8x now, right? I actually have a 6x in my Mac Pro.
While I can understand the desire to have an internal drive in the Mac Pros replacement I'm not too sure Apple will go that way. Eternal drives are a real pain in the ass for those that use them a lot. Apples obvious problem here is simply this, how many pros actually use Optical drives a lot. The answer is not many in my opinion though we will get a few pipping in any moment saying that they do. The problem is they are the very few that do, so does Apple redesign the Mac Pro and specifically accommodate the few by supporting a dying technology?
Quote:
"Wait, you?!"

Yeah, it's a BD-RE/HD DVD-ROM drive. Really I got it for the latter half of that, but I've lightly used it for both.
You know I've avoided Blu Ray as much as I possible can. I see no reason to support the mental illness that brought that hardware to market.
Quote:
When the new model comes out, I think you'll feel firsthand what I said earlier about "current Mac Pro owners will hate it".
Yep they will concentrate on the past and not look towards the future. I only hope that Apple really looks towards the future because we are at another technology juncture that could see rapid changes in what a desktop computer looks like.
Quote:
This thing won't have optical drives, and it's absolutely not going to have FireWire. I'm thinking at least four Thunderbolt to make up for that, four USB 3, and then whatever else. 
Probably close.
Quote:
I agree, though; I like that my setup is only screen, tower, keyboard, trackpad. I'd take an all-in-one over that, but you can't fit a Xeon behind a screen without it exploding.

It will be most interesting to see where Apple goes processor wise with the 2013 Mac Pro. Something's that Intel had posted about Xeon Phi seems to have fallen off the radar, at least I can't find the references on Intels sight anymore. So maybe a Phi based Mac Pro with supercomputing type networking is in the wings. The chip I'm talking about is not the currently released Phi processors but rather a Xeon derived chip with the super computing networking built in. Or maybe not, the point here is that Apple has more choices for the Mac Pro than ever before. Everything is on the table from memory architecture to secondary storage.
post #129 of 201
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Apples obvious problem here is simply this, how many pros actually use Optical drives a lot. The answer is not many in my opinion though we will get a few pipping in any moment saying that they do. The problem is they are the very few that do, so does Apple redesign the Mac Pro and specifically accommodate the few by supporting a dying technology?

 

Seriously! They can just get one of these and quit whining about how they "need an optical drive".

 

1000

 

Yes, that's a 1-15 duplicator. lol.gif


You know I've avoided Blu Ray as much as I possible can. I see no reason to support the mental illness that brought that hardware to market.

 

A younger me would have just out and said that, too. lol.gif


It will be most interesting to see where Apple goes processor wise with the 2013 Mac Pro. So maybe a Phi based Mac Pro with supercomputing type networking is in the wings.

 

I_want_to_believe.png

 

When it is released, what Apple means when they say "the 2013 Mac Pro" is a lot more important than people think. What that means extends downward through all of Apple's products.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #130 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seriously! They can just get one of these and quit whining about how they "need an optical drive".
Nice! It must cost a pretty penny though.
Quote:
Yes, that's a 1-15 duplicator. lol.gif

A younger me would have just out and said that, too. lol.gif
Hey I'm becoming an old fart and I said it. I understand the need to control theft but there was so much stupidity associated with the Blu Ray group that frankly it causes you to loose confidence in capitalism. Seeing the tragedy that is Windows, after the hoops MS had to jump through to become compliant, I'm glad Apple said screw it.
Quote:
I_want_to_believe.png

When it is released, what Apple means when they say "the 2013 Mac Pro" is a lot more important than people think. What that means extends downward through all of Apple's products.

There is much speculation surrounding the 2103 Mac Pro. However I can see the gap widening between the world of Pro hardware and consumer hardware. It will be more interesting to see what the 2013 Mini will be like. More so it will be very interesting if Apple can deliver a 64 bit ARM platform in 2013.

64 bit ARM would allow them to massively accelerated iOS development and features. This would lead to even faster split between consumer and more professional devices.
post #131 of 201

Great thread...

 

Getting a bit OT, but as much as I wish Blu-Ray and DRM would die a painful death I think it still offers something that is unavailable (or at least very difficult to find) elsewhere.  That is, the very best picture quality and data rates available.  Many of us have high resolution 1080p or more displays and TVs and SD tends to look very flakey on them.  If I want to watch Lord of Rings Extended Edition in Blu-Ray quality, I either buy the box-set set or download some 300 Gb from a torrent site (if available).  I certainly can't download it from iTunes.

 

The latter isn't really worth doing, not only because it would take a good while but because I can't be bothered finding space to store and back up that much data.  Where Blu-Ray used to be overpriced, they obviously decided it wasn't catching on so now they're a dime a dozen in the discount bin and generally only marginally more expensive than SD DVDs.  I can buy Lord of the Rings in Blu-Ray much cheaper now than I bought it originally on SD DVD.  So before Blu-Ray dies SD DVDs would have to die first.

 

Also, as much as studies show that people can't tell the difference between iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) and CD quality, Steve and Apple could have done a lot to hasten the death of CDs by providing equivalent quality, which they still haven't done.  Even though it's a technicality for most it's still a degradation when there needn't be.  They also tried to encourage us to buy from iTunes when the quality was only 128 kbps and the difference between that and CD is like day and night to me, even on my B&W MM-1 computer speakers.

 

I look forward to watching Blu-Ray lord of the Rings and Mylene au Stade de France via an external BD drive on my 15" retina when I get one.  I guess that means I won't need one in my Mac Pro! :P

 

PS.  I really do use my Mac Pro for work and not just as a glorified and extremely overpriced TV...

post #132 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Great thread...

 

Getting a bit OT, but as much as I wish Blu-Ray and DRM would die a painful death I think it still offers something that is unavailable (or at least very difficult to find) elsewhere.  That is, the very best picture quality and data rates available.  Many of us have high resolution 1080p or more displays and TVs and SD tends to look very flakey on them.  If I want to watch Lord of Rings Extended Edition in Blu-Ray quality, I either buy the box-set set or download some 300 Gb from a torrent site (if available).  I certainly can't download it from iTunes.

 

The latter isn't really worth doing, not only because it would take a good while but because I can't be bothered finding space to store and back up that much data.  Where Blu-Ray used to be overpriced, they obviously decided it wasn't catching on so now they're a dime a dozen in the discount bin and generally only marginally more expensive than SD DVDs.  I can buy Lord of the Rings in Blu-Ray much cheaper now than I bought it originally on SD DVD.  So before Blu-Ray dies SD DVDs would have to die first.

 

Also, as much as studies show that people can't tell the difference between iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) and CD quality, Steve and Apple could have done a lot to hasten the death of CDs by providing equivalent quality, which they still haven't done.  Even though it's a technicality for most it's still a degradation when there needn't be.  They also tried to encourage us to buy from iTunes when the quality was only 128 kbps and the difference between that and CD is like day and night to me, even on my B&W MM-1 computer speakers.

 

I look forward to watching Blu-Ray lord of the Rings and Mylene au Stade de France via an external BD drive on my 15" retina when I get one.  I guess that means I won't need one in my Mac Pro! :P

 

PS.  I really do use my Mac Pro for work and not just as a glorified and extremely overpriced TV...

There is still a signifcant quality difference between streaming media and optical media.  Certainly for BD versus iTunes streams.  And AAC versus CD, those studies showing that people cannot tell the difference must have been rigged.  Maybe if the right music was selected for comparison, the difference might not be noticable, but in general there is a clear difference.  The spatial quality of music recordings suffers tremendously with any lossy compression codec that I've tried.

post #133 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Great thread...

Getting a bit OT, but as much as I wish Blu-Ray and DRM would die a painful death I think it still offers something that is unavailable (or at least very difficult to find) elsewhere.  That is, the very best picture quality and data rates available.  Many of us have high resolution 1080p or more displays and TVs and SD tends to look very flakey on them.  If I want to watch Lord of Rings Extended Edition in Blu-Ray quality, I either buy the box-set set or download some 300 Gb from a torrent site (if available).  I certainly can't download it from iTunes.
Blu Ray is 25GB per layer of 50 GB for a long movie with lots of extras. To put it simply a 300GB file is a joke.
Quote:
The latter isn't really worth doing, not only because it would take a good while but because I can't be bothered finding space to store and back up that much data.  Where Blu-Ray used to be overpriced, they obviously decided it wasn't catching on so now they're a dime a dozen in the discount bin and generally only marginally more expensive than SD DVDs.  I can buy Lord of the Rings in Blu-Ray much cheaper now than I bought it originally on SD DVD.  So before Blu-Ray dies SD DVDs would have to die first.
The price of Blu Ray disc have come down because it is a market failure plain and simple. The supposed extra quality was never worth the extra expense. The fact of the matter is most people don't place their faces ten inches from the TV screen so they can justify the extra resolution.
Quote:
Also, as much as studies show that people can't tell the difference between iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) and CD quality, Steve and Apple could have done a lot to hasten the death of CDs by providing equivalent quality, which they still haven't done.  
If people can't tell the difference the quality is equivalent.
Quote:
Even though it's a technicality for most it's still a degradation when there needn't be.  They also tried to encourage us to buy from iTunes when the quality was only 128 kbps and the difference between that and CD is like day and night to me, even on my B&W MM-1 computer speakers.
They didn't encourage anything, they had to work with the record companies. I'm not sure why Apple is still blamed for this.
Quote:
I look forward to watching Blu-Ray lord of the Rings and Mylene au Stade de France via an external BD drive on my 15" retina when I get one.  I guess that means I won't need one in my Mac Pro! :P
It is a 15" screen, do you really believe it will offer that much extra viewing pleasure over a regular 15" screen?
Quote:
PS.  I really do use my Mac Pro for work and not just as a glorified and extremely overpriced TV...

Yeah sure.

I find these attitudes with respect to Blu Ray puzzling at times. It is almost as if people are more concerned about the movie being Blu Ray than actually getting into the story being offered up. I mean really how do you suspend disbelief if you are concentrating on every artifact you see in the flick. At that point you aren't watching the movie but rather are watching the screen.
post #134 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

There is still a signifcant quality difference between streaming media and optical media.  Certainly for BD versus iTunes streams.  And AAC versus CD, those studies showing that people cannot tell the difference must have been rigged.  Maybe if the right music was selected for comparison, the difference might not be noticable, but in general there is a clear difference.  The spatial quality of music recordings suffers tremendously with any lossy compression codec that I've tried.

 

Yeah that's what I think, at least I want to think. :P I wasn't suggesting there isn't any quality loss. I was trying to argue that I want Apple Lossless in iTunes. It's certainly true that space and soundstage are the first things to go with compression. Most people don't notice it but compressed audio sounds very flat and lifeless in comparison, particularly anything under 256 kbps.
post #135 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Blu Ray is 25GB per layer of 50 GB for a long movie with lots of extras. To put it simply a 300GB file is a joke.
The price of Blu Ray disc have come down because it is a market failure plain and simple. The supposed extra quality was never worth the extra expense. The fact of the matter is most people don't place their faces ten inches from the TV screen so they can justify the extra resolution.
If people can't tell the difference the quality is equivalent.
They didn't encourage anything, they had to work with the record companies. I'm not sure why Apple is still blamed for this.
It is a 15" screen, do you really believe it will offer that much extra viewing pleasure over a regular 15" screen?
Yeah sure.
I find these attitudes with respect to Blu Ray puzzling at times. It is almost as if people are more concerned about the movie being Blu Ray than actually getting into the story being offered up. I mean really how do you suspend disbelief if you are concentrating on every artifact you see in the flick. At that point you aren't watching the movie but rather are watching the screen.

 

1. Lord of the Rings Extended Edition is 6 discs. Assuming they used double-layer that means it's up to 300 Gb. If he didn't use double-layer there is no reason to split the movie over two discs, he could have fit each film on one disc! I know Peter pushed the limits of SD bit rates and likes to push for the highest quality possible in most things, such as 48 fps in The Hobbit. The extra quality is worth it to me. 2. There is still a technical difference between lossy and lossless audio. My point is that there is no reason or need to go backwards anymore, even if most people can't tell the difference, though some people (like the post above) claim they can. Some people even want to move forward and make double the bit rate of CD audio the new standard. At least give us the option. If you don't want the larger download, stick with 256. 3. For well made Blu-Ray films you can absolutely tell the differenc and the rMBP has the pixels to show it off, even though it won't be as obvious as on larger screens and TVs. Any suggestion that you can't tell the difference between SD and Blu-Ray is laughable. I didn't say I was comparing Blu-Ray on regular version retina 15" MBP. 4. Thanks for your passive agressive dismissal but I love my job. I wish I could have got the 12-core but it still wouldn't have been enough power. I'm eagerly waiting to see what the major update will bring.
post #136 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf 
1. Lord of the Rings Extended Edition is 6 discs. Assuming they used double-layer that means it's up to 300 Gb.

Someone extracted it here:

http://www.makemkv.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4915

It's 189GB for the 3 movies and 41Mbps. People have 50Mbps+ broadband now so it would be possible to stream down but it's not necessary to use that high a bitrate. Some will always say lossless or at least very high quality is better but it's really about what is good enough to the eye in a given process otherwise going by specs, people would similarly claim Blu-Ray pales in comparison to 300Mbps 10-bit ProRes. JPEGs are rarely complained about for example and the same goes for cinema viewings where the colours are faded and the frame might be askew or have marks on the screen or projector lens or be slightly out of focus at the edges or someone's shadow is being cast onto the bottom of it.

I'm all for movie distribution on Blu-Ray when it comes to keeping movies you like and for data backups but I think streaming works best for movies and TV that you'll most likely only watch once or twice and for the exception when people do demand the highest quality then external drives will suffice. Hardware manufacturers shouldn't compromise their devices or services for the many to satisfy the few.

That's why I feel the Mac Pro needs an overhaul and rather than design it to satisfy the few who don't want it to change, its design should reflect its purpose. The purpose of movie distribution is to get movies to consumers in a way that makes the most money. If the distribution method requires you to buy new hardware and expensive discs, it acts as a barrier to that content and is a barrier to sales and it will get worse the more that new hardware like the following offers diminishing returns for the investment:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1354605554

It's a similar deal with the Mac Pro. Apple can design it in the same way by trying to cover everything but it has diminishing returns. What do you really get for your $6200 over an iMac? It's 3x faster than an iMac at raw processing for 3x the price, fine but you also get lumped with tons of things the majority of people never use and you pay for that. You also have to buy your display on top. That's why I say keep the core machine as simple and as focused on the core purpose as possible and for the few people who need more, let them build it out externally. I don't believe the core purpose of the Mac Pro is expansion, I think it's power. While it seems contradictory to make a powerful machine smaller, it has to be balanced with price and market volume. A more attractive machine will attract more buyers and if it offers significantly better performance per dollar, then that's a huge incentive to buy.
post #137 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



They didn't encourage anything, they had to work with the record companies. I'm not sure why Apple is still blamed for this.
 

Cheap content works in Apple's favor. They can sell expensive hardware if subsequent purchases don't appear daunting. As for the music companies, their problems extended far beyond things like torrenting. If you look at how they've behaved more recently, they've been extremely conservative in what they produce.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Someone extracted it here:
http://www.makemkv.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4915
It's 189GB for the 3 movies and 41Mbps. People have 50Mbps+ broadband now so it would be possible to stream down but it's not necessary to use that high a bitrate. Some will always say lossless or at least very high quality is better but it's really about what is good enough to the eye in a given process otherwise going by specs, people would similarly claim Blu-Ray pales in comparison to 300Mbps 10-bit ProRes. JPEGs are rarely complained about for example and the same goes for cinema viewings where the colours are faded and the frame might be askew or have marks on the screen or projector lens or be slightly out of focus at the edges or someone's shadow is being cast onto the bottom of it.

 

Production quality keeps increasing. 4k is more common today, especially in feature films. It doesn't have to be the same resolution as the final product. You still see some gains, especially in primary colors with the effect of bayer array sensors and the fact that rasterization isn't a lossless process. It's possible to realize gains even if they aren't theoretically displayed in every possible output. Resolutions like 4k+ may still hold some value in terms of what you see at the theaters. It's also quite possible that the ever increasing resolutions may help alleviate a portion of the undesirable behavior inherent to the bayer array when the problem is defeated through incredible resolution. It's a weird issue. When you go to really tight pixel counts, you reach a point where camera shake even can eclipse more than one pixel. The problem came up in still cameras first. On the positive side, You get to a point where you may have sufficient detail in primary colors and can overcome some of the issues of interpolating gaps.

post #138 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Cheap content works in Apple's favor. They can sell expensive hardware if subsequent purchases don't appear daunting. As for the music companies, their problems extended far beyond things like torrenting. If you look at how they've behaved more recently, they've been extremely conservative in what they produce.
I suspect you have glossed over what I was trying to get at. To put it plainly it took a huge amount of effort on Apples part to convince many of the record companies to allow for high quality downloads. The idea that Apple was the one surprising audio quality on iTunes is not supported at all in the history.
Quote:

Production quality keeps increasing. 4k is more common today, especially in feature films. It doesn't have to be the same resolution as the final product. You still see some gains, especially in primary colors with the effect of bayer array sensors and the fact that rasterization isn't a lossless process. It's possible to realize gains even if they aren't theoretically displayed in every possible output.
Of course you can see higher quality, that isn't the point. The point is most people weren't willing to pay for it. Especially when the evilness of the BluRay empire is well known amongst consumers.
Quote:
Resolutions like 4k+ may still hold some value in terms of what you see at the theaters. It's also quite possible that the ever increasing resolutions may help alleviate a portion of the undesirable behavior inherent to the bayer array when the problem is defeated through incredible resolution. It's a weird issue. When you go to really tight pixel counts, you reach a point where camera shake even can eclipse more than one pixel. The problem came up in still cameras first. On the positive side, You get to a point where you may have sufficient detail in primary colors and can overcome some of the issues of interpolating gaps.

There is little doubt in my mind that 4K can be used to great effect in a theater. For casual home viewing I just don't see a huge draw. In many cases I fully believe that people go to movie theaters for a different experience than can be had at home. It is the use case that has made BluRay a major joke.
post #139 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I suspect you have glossed over what I was trying to get at. To put it plainly it took a huge amount of effort on Apples part to convince many of the record companies to allow for high quality downloads. The idea that Apple was the one surprising audio quality on iTunes is not supported at all in the history.
 

 

I read through it. I'm getting over the flu, so my thought process is definitely slower than normal. In terms of blind studies, other mp3 players were ranked higher. To the best of my recollection, Apple had several things. They had a dedicated system for managing mp3s in the form of itunes, which also became a point of distribution. They had a product with a distinct look that was marketed brilliantly. They had a lot of purchasing power when it came to NAND. The main points being that organization and distribution were covered.

 

Quote:

 

Of course you can see higher quality, that isn't the point. The point is most people weren't willing to pay for it. Especially when the evilness of the BluRay empire is well known amongst consumers.

 

That's not quite what I was getting at. Source footage is manipulated in a lot of ways, none of which are really lossless. Manipulating rasterized media is never really lossless. The cameras capture with filtered arrays. Out of 4 pixels, 2 would be filtered to detect green, one would be filtered red, one would be filtered blue. They have gaps reserved for supporting electronics as well, but the important thing is that a really saturated red or blue object is of effectively of lower resolution in this system of measurement. Further the data is rasterized. The behavior is remapped entirely. Rounding errors and interpolation affect what you really get in the end. Using a higher hardware resolution is effectively allowing for some oversampling of data to ensure that the end requirements are met. If something is going to be displayed up to 1080, it still may be shot higher than 1080 to allow for some loss of quality before it becomes noticeable to the end viewer.

 

Quote:
There is little doubt in my mind that 4K can be used to great effect in a theater. For casual home viewing I just don't see a huge draw. In many cases I fully believe that people go to movie theaters for a different experience than can be had at home. It is the use case that has made BluRay a major joke.

 

Theater viewing is a huge source of distribution, so that point alone could drive higher resolution. I don't see a huge draw for home viewing either. What Blu-Ray needed was the ability to drop in at a similar price point. Even then it's hard to overcome the convenience factor of something like itunes or netflix. If you want to watch something at home, you don't really leave your home to retrieve whatever it is you want to watch. I never liked video stores, and most of them no longer exist at this point. Once it's beyond 30 minutes or so to grab a movie to watch, I go to the theater instead.

post #140 of 201

The discussion of Blu-Ray after all of this time is amusing. I remember similar discussions when the Mac Pro was first introduced in 2006 when Blu Ray players were first showing up. Apple has held off this long, don't be surprised when you see the same 18x Superdrive as the standard (and only) drive offered.

 

I'm glad to see the Mac Pro finally getting some attention, though. I've had mine since 2006 and it has been the longest I've owned a computer without having to upgrade. Looking forward to finally upgrading when the new towers are released.

post #141 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran441 View Post

I'm glad to see the Mac Pro finally getting some attention, though. I've had mine since 2006 and it has been the longest I've owned a computer without having to upgrade. Looking forward to finally upgrading when the new towers are released.

Another example that shows the MP really is the cheapest Mac you can buy.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #142 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
Another example that shows the MP really is the cheapest Mac you can buy.

It depends, you can keep using any machine for as long as it will last. You could still be running a $599 Mac Mini from 2006 in which case it's a cheaper option. A $999 2011 Server Mini is about 50% faster than the $3299 top-end 2006 Pro. After about 3-4 years, the performance of the top-end machines matches machines that are 1/3 the price. So you could go either route - buy high and ride it down or keep upgrading and in 3-4 years, you end up at the same place. Upgrading from the low-end works out cheaper and you stay in warranty but you have to make do with lower performance at the beginning. It also means Apple is more likely to put out new models regularly though because there is a stronger demand. If Mac Pro owners made a point of upgrading every 3 years, Apple would probably feel more inclined to update it more frequently than once every 3 years - if people won't buy, there's no reason for them to sell.
post #143 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Another example that shows the MP really is the cheapest Mac you can buy.

I am visiting AI daily now simply hoping for a crumb of information about a new MP. As you say $ for $ over the long haul they are worth every penny and then some. I have owned all the top of the line Mac towers since they came out. I sold my 8 core MP in late 2010 and got the top of the line MBP i7 and maxed it out with RAM and an big SSD ... I had convinced myself it would do the job as part of me lusted for portability. It is and always has bee SO much slower than the MP I sold as to be untrue. I was an idiot thinking it could even compare to a MP for HD video or even Aperture and thousands of RAW images ... I suspect even the latest MBPs would be slower at rendering and multi tasking or only recently faster. I should have kept the 8 Core MP till now for sure. Lesson learned!

I am truly hoping a new MP comes out soon as I for one am 'going home' to a real work horse!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #144 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips 
I am visiting AI daily now simply hoping for a crumb of information about a new MP.

Ivy Bridge EP doesn't come out until the 2nd half of the year so it'll be WWDC in June at the earliest. Apple has had early CPU releases on occasions in the past but WWDC is a good time to announce it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips 
I have owned all the top of the line Mac towers since they came out. I sold my 8 core MP in late 2010 and got the top of the line MBP i7 and maxed it out with RAM and an big SSD ... I had convinced myself it would do the job as part of me lusted for portability. It is and always has bee SO much slower than the MP I sold as to be untrue.

If you sold a $6000 8-core workstation for a $2700 dual-core i7 laptop, which was about 1/4 the speed, that's to be expected. The 2012 quad-core MBPs are about 70% of the top-end 2009 8-core MP and have powerful GPUs. The Haswell ones will be coming soon too. As I said above, you have to give it 3-4 years before you can expect to drop from an expensive workstation to a machine that can be bought for 1/3 the price. If you could do it in a year, the prices would be very different.
post #145 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I am visiting AI daily now simply hoping for a crumb of information about a new MP.
Well it is 2013. So that new Mac Pro ought to hit the streets sometime soon.
Quote:
As you say $ for $ over the long haul they are worth every penny and then some. I have owned all the top of the line Mac towers since they came out. I sold my 8 core MP in late 2010 and got the top of the line MBP i7 and maxed it out with RAM and an big SSD ... I had convinced myself it would do the job as part of me lusted for portability.
People post many numbers on these forums trying to prove that you don't need a Mac Pro anymore because XYZ solution is the equivalent of that 3 year old machine. For the most part that is complete non sense as artificial benchmarks do not reflect on the Mac Pros capability to get work done under heavily load.
Quote:
It is and always has bee SO much slower than the MP I sold as to be untrue. I was an idiot thinking it could even compare to a MP for HD video or even Aperture and thousands of RAW images ... I suspect even the latest MBPs would be slower at rendering and multi tasking or only recently faster. I should have kept the 8 Core MP till now for sure. Lesson learned!
For a specific task a recent MBP might be as fast or even faster than a Mac Pro. However that is a useless metric for professional use. Most laptops are very constrained when it comes to multitasking which makes them questionable machines for a professional work station. At least for any professional able to multitask himself.
Quote:
I am truly hoping a new MP comes out soon as I for one am 'going home' to a real work horse!

Yeah it is hard to say what Apple is up to with the refactored Mac Pro. Frankly we don't know if it will even be the work horse of the past. The lack of real or even imagined rumors though kinda indicates that it may be several months before the machine debuts. This will be sad if true as Apples poor management of this machine is driving sales into the gutter. Personally I was hoping for a new machine by the end of the month, but that is looking to be more difficult as you would expect leaks or even rumors by now.

To put it plainly Apples whole desktop line up is hosed. This is a extremely bad example of management and if it goes on to long I would imagine the board would want to know what the hell is up. Let's face it they can't even meet iMac demand which is a big fail for the bread and butter Mac. The Minis rev was one step forward and two back with the Mac Pro has rightfully become a joke among professionals. All of this just looks really bad especially when they can and do execute with the laptop line up. Your big worry should be that this screw up causes them to cancel the Mac Pro due to lack of sales. Everything about the desktop line up and its management is just plain ugly.
post #146 of 201
Quote:
 To put it plainly Apples whole desktop line up is hosed. This is a extremely bad example of management and if it goes on to long I would imagine the board would want to know what the hell is up. Let's face it they can't even meet iMac demand which is a big fail for the bread and butter Mac.

What's funny here is that you could make the exact same post back in late 1998, early 1999 and it would be just as relevant.

post #147 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
People post many numbers on these forums trying to prove that you don't need a Mac Pro anymore because XYZ solution is the equivalent of that 3 year old machine.

Mostly that Apple doesn't need to make one any more, not that the need for higher performance disappears but as I've said before, high resource tasks can be done in a different way. You can offload computing to a Mini Server or two leaving your Macbook Pro or whatever under zero load.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
For the most part that is complete non sense as artificial benchmarks do not reflect on the Mac Pros capability to get work done under heavily load.

For a specific task a recent MBP might be as fast or even faster than a Mac Pro. However that is a useless metric for professional use. Most laptops are very constrained when it comes to multitasking which makes them questionable machines for a professional work station. At least for any professional able to multitask himself.

In what way would the Mac Pro be better at multi-tasking? If the raw CPU performance is comparable, the memory bandwidth comparable:

http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html

the amount of RAM, the performance of the drives (faster in the laptops as they use SATA 6G not SATA 3G), what other components determine that the Mac Pro will do a better job? The comparison made above was a dual-core laptop vs an 8-core Pro to draw the conclusion that not even the modern laptops would make a suitable workstation.

If the 2009 8-core makes a suitable workstation then so does the current MBP. I can understand that people will refuse to accept that but that's not Apple's problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Apples poor management of this machine is driving sales into the gutter.

The sales wouldn't be far off even if they managed it better though. There just aren't many people who need a $2500+ desktop when the other models perform so well now.

It doesnt help matters when Intel delay Xeon chips so long that they end up a whole year behind the lower-end ones.
post #148 of 201

Achieving performance in a different way implies that you have software to support it.   Frankly it doesn't look like Apple is strongly supporting such arrangements with XGrid and similar support up in the air.   I'm actually hoping that Apples silence with respect to XGrid is the result of having something better in the pipeline but it really doesn't look good.    Even CLangs support of clusters is wanting and apparently not even driven by Apple.

 

As for memory bandwidth and multitasking, the independent channels in a multiprocessor Mac pro can be a big benefit to many uses.   It is the aggregate bandwidth combined with less contention that you don't have with a single processor Mac implementation.   

 

The problem with your position is that it depends.   You say a 8 core machine from 2009 is the equivalent of the current MBP but the reality is far different.   It is very easy to configure that old Mac Pro to do things that a laptop can't do.   

 

Well I consider a $2500 desktop to be a management problem!   The price is simply unjustified.   Now you may be able to justify that pice in your mind and discount its impact on sales but I have a very hard time buying it.   Frankly I see it as a mistake from the management standpoint and possibly the result of a determined effort on Apples part to move people to laptops.   In any event does a $2500 desktop with just 4 cores make sense by any measure?

 

I'm not going to dismiss Intels role in the fiasco that is the Mac Pro, that is a real issue.   However it does not explain Apple recent "update" to the Mac Pro that could at best be seen as two years late and too little now.   Nor does the Intel problem explain Apples shipping the same old GPU card for 3 years now.   These are all creations of Apple not Intel.   I still fall back on the same premise that the desktop line up is stagnate and is basically being ignored by Apple.    

 

If you look at each desktop product one at a time it is pretty hard not to see a lack of commitment from Apple.   First; you have a long drawn out update to the iMac and even after that long delay they can't meet production demand.   That is very telling all on its own.   Second; you get the Mini with its give a little take a little update.   Of course knowing Apple they take the most important part of the machine most in need of an update.    Third; you have the Mac Pro that has become so neglected that it is legend on these boards.   It is pretty hard not to see how Apple has shot themselves in the foot here.    I'm certain that they will blame the "post PC era" and say told you so but the reality is many of us have been waiting for Apple to straighten out its desktop product line up for a very long time.   In my case well before I purchased that 2008 MBP because Apple had nothing suitable in a desktop machine.    Even a little bit of experimenting would do wonders for the user base out there.

 

I really don't see any benefit in making excuses for Apple.   They have neglected the desktop and should be put on notice that it isn't cool anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Mostly that Apple doesn't need to make one any more, not that the need for higher performance disappears but as I've said before, high resource tasks can be done in a different way. You can offload computing to a Mini Server or two leaving your Macbook Pro or whatever under zero load.
In what way would the Mac Pro be better at multi-tasking? If the raw CPU performance is comparable, the memory bandwidth comparable:
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html
the amount of RAM, the performance of the drives (faster in the laptops as they use SATA 6G not SATA 3G), what other components determine that the Mac Pro will do a better job? The comparison made above was a dual-core laptop vs an 8-core Pro to draw the conclusion that not even the modern laptops would make a suitable workstation.
If the 2009 8-core makes a suitable workstation then so does the current MBP. I can understand that people will refuse to accept that but that's not Apple's problem.
The sales wouldn't be far off even if they managed it better though. There just aren't many people who need a $2500+ desktop when the other models perform so well now.
It doesnt help matters when Intel delay Xeon chips so long that they end up a whole year behind the lower-end ones.
post #149 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
As for memory bandwidth and multitasking, the independent channels in a multiprocessor Mac pro can be a big benefit to many uses. It is the aggregate bandwidth combined with less contention that you don't have with a single processor Mac implementation.

I don't see how there's any contention issues that will affect real-world performance. Computers have changed dramatically since we had to use things like RAM Doubler. We don't have 2-core/2-thread chips. The MBP has a 4-core/8-thread chip and the memory bandwidth is really high so it's perfectly capable of balancing multiple processes.

The same arguments that were relevant 5 years ago will be used forever to avoid the reality that outside of raw processing performance, large workstations don't have a practical advantage over a laptop now.

There are tasks like compositing previews that use as many cores as possible and are in the class of real-time productivity but doing those on the GPU is the way to go and mobile GPUs are pretty fast now. Like I say, the need for raw power exists, but arguments about resource-intensive tasks only being possible on a Mac Pro are no longer valid and more importantly the volume of high-resource users goes down the more that lower-end machines meet the minimum performance bar for certain tasks.

You can never point to specs and say that some spec might cause a problem and that justifies a solution. If it does, it does and there would be real world examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
It is very easy to configure that old Mac Pro to do things that a laptop can't do.

You can tie a rope to it and moor your boat but it's about practical and not theoretical usage scenarios. You can obviously configure it with 4 drives and a RAID card but now Thunderbolt and the Pegasus allows you to get the same with a laptop/iMac (arguably better because you don't have to change it between different computers). You can put in a high-end desktop GPU and you can put in 96GB RAM but does a 650M (or 680MX in the iMac) and 16/32GB RAM prevent you from doing anything? You can set your RAM cache in an app to 64GB and suggest that because the app fills it up that it can't work with less but it's not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Well I consider a $2500 desktop to be a management problem!

It's a market problem first of all and the price has to reflect that. Say their margins are 80% (we know they are higher than the other products), their costs are $1388. If they went to 40% like the other products, they'd hit $1999. They half their profits but will they sell double the amount? I very much doubt it so why bother?

You see the Mac Pro enthusiasts here all the time - "I have a Mac Pro from 2006, why doesn't Apple give me something I want 6 years later, don't they know how important we are to them?" If people want more interest to be shown in them, they need to display more interest first and that doesn't mean expecting everyone else will pick up the slack. If you own a Mac Pro, upgrade it every 3 years. If every Mac Pro owner doubles their buy rate, Apple's figures double too, then they adjust to the demand.

You can't just expect them to use cheaper parts to put into the most expensive machine they sell either. If it's to be cheaper, they have to setup the manufacturing chain to allow it and engineer it to be more cost-effective without compromising the quality.

Hopefully, this is what they're doing now. If all they are actually doing is switching the motherboards, chips and GPUs like the old-style MBPs, you know what's coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
possibly the result of a determined effort on Apples part to move people to laptops.

I don't see this as a bad thing any more and I think it's a combination of the market going this route and Apple maximising on it rather than forcing people against their will. HP and Dell are examples of what happens when you try to keep pushing things the market just doesn't want (or at least doesn't want to pay a lot for).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Nor does the Intel problem explain Apples shipping the same old GPU card for 3 years now.

Yeah, there's no reason to be shipping the 5770 GPUs, same deal with SATA 3G. That 2012 update would actually have been worthwhile if they'd just put in SATA 6G for better SSD speed and the latest GPU.

I still think they were ready to kill it off. It's the same thing they always do before they EOL something. This "something" coming next year looks to me like a clear enough message that they don't have to do it at all but the staff there must want to. It might be demoted to 'hobby' status like the TV though if it hasn't already been. I definitely think it will be manufactured in the US from now on and could have also contributed to the delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
It is pretty hard not to see how Apple has shot themselves in the foot here.

If you shoot yourself in the foot, you are the one who suffers for it. I can only see Apple doing better than ever. It's Mac Pro buyers who have shot themselves in the foot by not buying frequently enough while being happy their machines last so long.
post #150 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't see how there's any contention issues that will affect real-world performance. Computers have changed dramatically since we had to use things like RAM Doubler. We don't have 2-core/2-thread chips. The MBP has a 4-core/8-thread chip and the memory bandwidth is really high so it's perfectly capable of balancing multiple processes.
That is debatable. Remember on some of Apples machines that bandwidth is decivided up between the cores and video. Sometimes that works to your advantage and sometimes it doesn't. Even if onboard GPUs are not used you can still have performance curves that look like bandwidth limitations.
Quote:
The same arguments that were relevant 5 years ago will be used forever to avoid the reality that outside of raw processing performance, large workstations don't have a practical advantage over a laptop now.
Well this I somewhat agree with, there is no need for the massive box that the Pro comes in anymore.
Quote:
There are tasks like compositing previews that use as many cores as possible and are in the class of real-time productivity but doing those on the GPU is the way to go and mobile GPUs are pretty fast now. Like I say, the need for raw power exists, but arguments about resource-intensive tasks only being possible on a Mac Pro are no longer valid and more importantly the volume of high-resource users goes down the more that lower-end machines meet the minimum performance bar for certain tasks.
I really don't see the market for high performance apps (with the required high performance hardware) dying, if anything I would expect it to expand as more and more difficult problems are attacked by developers. As for GPU computing it is great for apps that translate well to the hardware but GPUs still have a ways to go to be useful running more generic code.
Quote:
You can never point to specs and say that some spec might cause a problem and that justifies a solution. If it does, it does and there would be real world examples.
You have people right in this thread telling you precisely that, laptops are in no way a substitute for a workstation class machine.
Quote:
You can tie a rope to it and moor your boat but it's about practical and not theoretical usage scenarios. You can obviously configure it with 4 drives and a RAID card but now Thunderbolt and the Pegasus allows you to get the same with a laptop/iMac (arguably better because you don't have to change it between different computers). You can put in a high-end desktop GPU and you can put in 96GB RAM but does a 650M (or 680MX in the iMac) and 16/32GB RAM prevent you from doing anything? You can set your RAM cache in an app to 64GB and suggest that because the app fills it up that it can't work with less but it's not the case.
One can certainly come up with all sorts of artificial constraints to prove one position over another. At the end of the day the only thing that counts is getting work done.
Quote:
It's a market problem first of all and the price has to reflect that. Say their margins are 80% (we know they are higher than the other products), their costs are $1388. If they went to 40% like the other products, they'd hit $1999. They half their profits but will they sell double the amount? I very much doubt it so why bother?
Why bother to Mac Macs at all? Seriously if you aren't interested in making machines that maintain market share why bother? After the 2012 desktop fiasco it really looks like Apple doesn't give a damn and with the stagnation seen in the line up they certainly haven't tried to spur the market along.
Quote:

You see the Mac Pro enthusiasts here all the time - "I have a Mac Pro from 2006, why doesn't Apple give me something I want 6 years later, don't they know how important we are to them?" If people want more interest to be shown in them, they need to display more interest first and that doesn't mean expecting everyone else will pick up the slack.
That is total BS and is the same logic that got Detroit into trouble. Hey guys lets make cars so crappy they have to buy new ones every four years are customer are both gullible and loyal so they will go for it!!
Quote:
If you own a Mac Pro, upgrade it every 3 years. If every Mac Pro owner doubles their buy rate, Apple's figures double too, then they adjust to the demand.
You can't be serious? It is Apples job to build desktops that drive demand. If they honestly expect the customer to pick up the slack, as you call it, by turning over high performance hardware at an unreasonable rate then it is all over for Apple. Apple should be fully expecting the average Mac Pro customer to keep the machine more than 3 years with 5 years being rational for 50% of the customer base.
Quote:
You can't just expect them to use cheaper parts to put into the most expensive machine they sell either. If it's to be cheaper, they have to setup the manufacturing chain to allow it and engineer it to be more cost-effective without compromising the quality.
Which is one; easy too do. Two; it has been argued at length in these forums that Apples lineup doesn't meet the needs of most desktop computer users. In a nut shell 2/3rd of the desktop line up is hard to justify for most purchasers. The Mini is forever castrated and the Mac Pro is so dated and retro no reasonable person would make the machine a long term investment. The iMac is an OK value but it isn't every bodies cup of tea due. To the integrated monitor.
Quote:
Hopefully, this is what they're doing now. If all they are actually doing is switching the motherboards, chips and GPUs like the old-style MBPs, you know what's coming.
Well I'm expecting that. Is what they are doing after Cook more or less said so.
Quote:
I don't see this as a bad thing any more and I think it's a combination of the market going this route and Apple maximising on it rather than forcing people against their will.
If you are interested in Mac OS you really have little choice other than the laptops for midrange performance machines. And then only if you are willing to settle for the associated shorter life span. Frankly it is a bit disingenuous to say Apple hasn't forced people onto laptops after taking a glance at the desktop line up.
Quote:
HP and Dell are examples of what happens when you try to keep pushing things the market just doesn't want (or at least doesn't want to pay a lot for).
Both HP and Dell still sell a lot of desktop hardware though.
Quote:
Yeah, there's no reason to be shipping the 5770 GPUs, same deal with SATA 3G. That 2012 update would actually have been worthwhile if they'd just put in SATA 6G for better SSD speed and the latest GPU.
Configurations like that are nothing more than management problems though. I honestly don't see any other explanation as newer GPU chips have come and gone in other Macs. You can't blame the chip makers nor can you call it a driver issue if the Pro is a generation or more behind other Macs.
Quote:
I still think they were ready to kill it off. It's the same thing they always do before they EOL something. This "something" coming next year looks to me like a clear enough message that they don't have to do it at all but the staff there must want to. It might be demoted to 'hobby' status like the TV though if it hasn't already been. I definitely think it will be manufactured in the US from now on and could have also contributed to the delay.
Even the hobby status Apple TV gets more updates than the Pro

I have to agree with one point though, I do think that they where ready to kill it off. If not kill it off they at least lost their way on the desktop.
Quote:
If you shoot yourself in the foot, you are the one who suffers for it. I can only see Apple doing better than ever.
They are not doing that well on the desktop. Long drawn out Mini updates for no good reason, iMacs that can't be shipped in volume and a joke of a Mac Pro. This all looks like shooting yourself in the foot to me.
Quote:
It's Mac Pro buyers who have shot themselves in the foot by not buying frequently enough while being happy their machines last so long.
Again you can't be serious with that statement. Any company that relies upon frequent sales to the same customer to keep a product going has issues. Like I said it is the mentality that put Detroit in the gutter. Like it or not computers are seen as durable goods by consumers, much like a TV, Dishwasher, Microwave, hotwater heater or any other appliance the expectation is that they last. If Apples computers developed a reputation that they had to be replaced every three years, it would suffer the same massive abandonment that Chevy and Chrysler suffered from.
post #151 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Even if onboard GPUs are not used you can still have performance curves that look like bandwidth limitations.

Maybe in a server environment because they run so many concurrent threads but when you are at the workstation level, it's under the control of one person and there's a handful of applications. Back when you could do less than 4 concurrent threads, it would be problematic but with 8 or more now, it's a pretty smooth experience.

There have been tests done between mult-core vs multi-processor (e.g 4-core vs 2x 2-core) and there's no real difference between them. The choice to use mutiple processors really comes down to it either being the only option for more cores or the most cost-effective. They have 8-core chips now and will soon have 10-core and 12-core chips. It's probably easier to cool two separate 6-cores than a single 12-core but real-world performance should be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I really don't see the market for high performance apps (with the required high performance hardware) dying, if anything I would expect it to expand as more and more difficult problems are attacked by developers.

This is visible in the video game industry though. Real-time graphics is one of the most resource-intensive things a computer can do and the assumption is that they'd keep pushing the quality bar and to an extent they do but there's a human limit to how much work can go into a task and what you find now is that developers often just target consoles because it means there's a wider audience.

High-end software like Final Cut, Avid, Adobe CS, Autodesk apps and so on are ever more being adjusted to cater for more mainstream users because the audience just isn't there on the higher end. That's why their software has been so expensive. This is most evident with Autodesk Smoke - they ported it to the Mac recently and demoed it on iMacs with a new UI and dropped the price from $15,000 to $3495.

The high-price, high-resource, low-volume model just doesn't work for software any more because it's about getting the job done. The faster machines will of course get them done quicker but everyone has a "good enough" threshold. If you can encode an H.264 video in 5 minutes and that's your priority task, is it compelling to get a machine that can do it in 2 minutes? If it only saves you 20 minutes a day then you might decide the return on investing in a machine that costs 3x as much isn't good enough to justify it.

The people who have this idea that 'every extra processor cycle counts' can't be Mac Pro owners because Apple doesn't offer the fastest hardware Intel offers and they don't keep upgrading. If people can be perfectly content with a Mac Pro for 6 years then their acceptable performance threshold is somewhere in the middle of that cycle and that's where the iMac and MBP sits.

It's better for the buyer to have the option to go higher but it's not essential for Apple to offer the highest possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
You have people right in this thread telling you precisely that, laptops are in no way a substitute for a workstation class machine.

Yes, older or dual-core laptops. Nobody is saying that their new Retina MBP is terrible compared to their 2009 MP and even if they did, it's people who have already made up their mind about what they prefer. I understand that way of thinking entirely and back when we had dual-core laptops 3.5 years ago, I was saying the same things about needing more power:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/99222/intel-core-2-quad-on-mbp-and-imac

They came through eventually. They put 45W chips in the Minis, they put 95W chips in the iMacs and quad-i7s in the laptops. They now have pretty much the fastest desktop i7s you can buy in the iMacs alongside a GPU that holds its own among the fastest desktop GPUs and a Mac Mini really can give you a similar performance experience to the entry Pro for a fraction of the price.

Obviously there will always be improvements to be had but they've made some pretty good choices over the last 3 years for the lower-end lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Why bother to Make Macs at all? Seriously if you aren't interested in making machines that maintain market share why bother?

What's the best possible marketshare a $2500+ workstation can get though? Their focus has to be where the demand is and that's the laptop line. The laptops will always get the first updates and the most publicity because it's what people want.

There were about 400 million PCs shipped in 2012 with 30% desktops = 120m. The top manufacturer shipped 16% so 19.2m desktops. This is 4.8m per quarter. Apple already sells 1.5m desktops per quarter and around 5% are MPs. What can they possibly do to the 75,000 Mac Pro sales per quarter to even make a dent there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
That is total BS and is the same logic that got Detroit into trouble. Hey guys lets make cars so crappy they have to buy new ones every four years are customer are both gullible and loyal so they will go for it!!

That's one solution to the issue but I'm not suggesting Apple makes a poorer quality Mac. Whatever the solution, buyers have to keep buying or a company has no incentive to sell. If Mac Pro owners want Apple to sell, they have to keep buying regardless of whether or not they need the update. Just look at the XServe as an example of what happens when people don't buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
It is Apples job to build desktops that drive demand. Apple should be fully expecting the average Mac Pro customer to keep the machine more than 3 years with 5 years being rational for 50% of the customer base.

If that's the case then why do people complain when there isn't a proper update for 3 years? If the minimum expectation is 3 years then 2010 buyers should be fine with another one coming in 2013.

You simply can't do both at once - you can't build a machine to last (in terms of need not reliability) and have the same machine drive a demand to buy a new one, you can only prioritize one or the other.

There's no harm in upgrading more often - the machine depreciates anyway so your upgrade cost is higher the longer you wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
The Mini is forever castrated

The Haswell one should be pretty good. Hopefully Ive will keep his glue-gun away from it and they won't solder the RAM in but they might solder the RAM to give better bandwidth to the GPU. If they do that, they'd have to go with 8GB minimum, raise the price $100 and charge $200 for 16GB. It seems like castration but it's just emphasising different things.

One of the problems is that because it's mini, people think it's slow but the quad-i7 is actually faster than a lot of the iMac chips. It also doesn't have an afforable Apple display to go along with it and you have to pay for accessories on top. The GPU issue is just to do with the power limit and the 13" MBPs are worse as they aren't even quad-cores so I don't really think the Mini is all that bad.

I'm really looking forward to the Haswell one. 15% faster than the already fast quad-i7, a GPU that can run Heaven in real-time, support OpenCL 1.2 and OpenGL 4, USB 3, add 16GB RAM and a Fusion drive and it's a good desktop. That setup might cost $1350 of course but it's only going to get better in future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
Both HP and Dell still sell a lot of desktop hardware though.

Only 3x what Apple sells each and the margins are less than 1/5th. Like I say, if they half the margins, they won't double the volume and even if they did, it's still a tiny marketshare.

At this stage, people should be grateful Apple is even bothering to make another one instead of condeming them for not doing it sooner because really, dropping it wouldn't affect them one bit and where would that leave potential buyers? They have no option but to buy a crummy PC and they're the ones that suffer for it.



^ Mac Pro buyer on the phone to the Apple Store wondering when the new one is coming out.
post #152 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

It's not that Apple is EOLing the Mac Pro, it's that they're giving up on the pro content creation market. They were dominant in video editing, and then inexplicably gave up. It's just stupid.

Ultimately the platform will suffer if Apple has no presence in content creation. OS X will be dumbed down into a consumer platform, and anyone serious about using their computer for work will be forced into Windows. It's just so sad.

Here's this posturing again that it's not possible to be a professional content creator with anything less than a Mac Pro. The FCP transition could have been smoother but it had to be done and they haven't given up on it. Competing NLEs might offer better functionality than where FCPX is right now but the worst you could say is that it's not the leading NLE, which might not have been the case before, depending on how you look at it. Is it a leading app if more people use it or more important people use it? 80% of feature films might be cut on Avid for example but there might be 10x more people overall using FCP so who's in the lead? Having a large marketshare and being powerful are also not mutually exclusive e.g Photoshop. Apple demonstrated a high-end workflow for FCPX:

http://images.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/electric/

"We’re now shooting the show on the RED EPIC cameras in 4K ... and we’ve moved to Final Cut Pro X. We’ve been able to do things on Leverage that no other cable show does simply because we can afford to do it using our all-digital workflow. It’s very rare to see a television show that averages 40 digital effects per episode. Or has four- or five-day sound mixing sessions. We’re able to do it and still produce a show for basically $1.8 million an episode. We think that Final Cut Pro X shows how simply and inexpensively a powerful file-based workflow can be implemented - not only does it change the price, but it actually changes creatively the way in which we work. We don’t have to wait to lock picture to start our digital effects shop.”

If someone rests a $1.8m budget on the ability of a $300 app to produce the final product, they either have to replace it when it fails or the software can handle it just fine.

When it comes to the Mac Pro, 80% of high-resource workstations might be HP/Dell with multi-Xeon chips but it's 80% of a small market and it's not that the jobs couldn't be done on something lower, it's just quicker to do them on a Xeon workstation.

An easier way to think about it is if you imagine that the Mac Pro was just discontinued, write down a list of things that are no longer possible without a Mac Pro. You can add things that are no longer possible with FCPX and things that are no longer possible without the XServe.

Obviously faster machines will offer a better experience and some people are willing to pay the extra but it's the same thing with televisions. They are bringing out 60"+ 4K TVs (one of them at 110" costs $300,000). Some people just don't want a 60" 3D 4K TV because there's no 4K content yet (not likely to be soon either) and a 40" 2D 1080p TV offers a good enough experience. If someone can cut 4K video on a laptop, multi-task the title sequences in AE and churn it out to 1080p H.264 for Blu-Ray or the web, at what point do you stop calling them a professional content creator? You can call them slow and maybe even cheap but you can't judge their skill by their tools.
post #153 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


http://images.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/electric/

"We’re now shooting the show on the RED EPIC cameras in 4K ... and we’ve moved to Final Cut Pro X. We’ve been able to do things on Leverage that no other cable show does simply because we can afford to do it using our all-digital workflow. It’s very rare to see a television show that averages 40 digital effects per episode. Or has four- or five-day sound mixing sessions. We’re able to do it and still produce a show for basically $1.8 million an episode. We think that Final Cut Pro X shows how simply and inexpensively a powerful file-based workflow can be implemented - not only does it change the price, but it actually changes creatively the way in which we work. We don’t have to wait to lock picture to start our digital effects shop.”

If someone rests a $1.8m budget on the ability of a $300 app to produce the final product, they either have to replace it when it fails or the software can handle it just fine.
 

The FCP to FCPX transition wasn't very good in that FCP had been languishing, and FCPX debuted in a typical 1.0 product state with the older one immediately EOL. The rest goes back to what I've already mentioned. You need some combination of hardware and software that meet the requirements of an entire working solution. The primary advantage of the desktop solution there is flexibility. You can usually find some custom solution to make it work. It doesn't mean other machines won't work if they align well with the required tasks. The link you posted is interesting in that it's the kind of place you'd expect to see newer workflows adopted first. Larger productions may have far more pipeline dependencies that make sudden shifts extremely difficult. They may have a lot of custom code to make things work, and ultimately what is important is that work is completed on time to the best quality possible.

post #154 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Here's this posturing again that it's not possible to be a professional content creator with anything less than a Mac Pro....

 

It's possible to be a professional content creator with a Mac Mini.  That doesn't make it preferable to use a Mini, does it?

post #155 of 201
Quote:
At this stage, people should be grateful Apple is even bothering to make another one instead of condeming them for not doing it sooner because really, dropping it wouldn't affect them one bit and where would that leave potential buyers? They have no option but to buy a crummy PC and they're the ones that suffer for it.



^ Mac Pro buyer on the phone to the Apple Store wondering when the new one is coming out.

Cute video
post #156 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 
It's possible to be a professional content creator with a Mac Mini.  That doesn't make it preferable to use a Mini, does it?

It depends on the job I'd say. If your work is more storage limited than processor-limited like with video editing then do you spend $2500 on a quad-core Mac Pro or do you spend $799 on a quad-core Mini and $1099 on a Pegasus R4? You still need to load the MP with drives and a RAID card to match the storage performance.

You can get a faster MP but you're pretty much at $3800 before you see the benefit, which is already double the Mini setup and again you have to load it up.

If you take costs out of the equation, faster is better but you wouldn't always recommend the $6200 model fully loaded with SSDs and 96GB RAM and the highest GPU because it's not always needed.

When you look at people who are at the top of their game, time and time again they show it doesn't matter what you use:

http://brightlightsfilm.com/78/78-cutters-way-the-mysterious-art-of-film-editing-walter-murch-margaret-booth_daseler.php

"Steven Spielberg, surprisingly enough, for all the wondrous effects he has brought to the screen in films like Jurassic Park (1993), was one of them. Of digital editing he has complained: "It doesn't smell like film. It smells like an electronic lab." In the '90s, seeing that the end was nigh, he began buying up old Moviolas and their spare parts to guard against a future shortage.

By the second decade of the new millennium, though, even he had succumbed to the inexorable pressure of modernity. His recent films Tintin (2011), War Horse (2011), and Lincoln (2012) were all cut on an Avid, though he insists he's anxious to return to analog as soon as possible. Such devotion to the past is comforting in a way, revealing that genius need not depend solely on flashy new technology, though it is certainly unusual these days. As Walter Murch wrote over a decade ago: "The persistence of the Moviola into the last decade of the twentieth century is about as surprising as seeing an old manual Underwood typewriter loaded onto the Space Shuttle."

http://www.btlnews.com/awards/contender-–-editor-michael-kahn-war-horse/

"“We all love the Moviola, that’s what got us were we are. Steve even loved the smell of it, the feel of it. He really enjoyed it,” reveals Kahn. “But when you sit down on an Avid and you want a trim right away, you don’t have to go to a box to get it, you just push a button and the trim is there. It is really quite an amazing machine and I wonder how they can build such a thing!” Kahn admits that he was fairly quick editing on film, but that Avid is ten times quicker for him. Film had given him the eye to quickly see matches, a skill which translated over to working on the computer."

They did amazing jobs manually cutting film in old mechanical machines and in some cases prefer it. You get a different mindset with limited technology. If you have to manually chop a piece of footage, it's a more important decision to make so you make it more carefully. When you work on a slower machine, you are similarly forced to find ways to optimize your work.

While having more resources to play with gives you a higher bound on creative freedom, it gives you a freedom to be wreckless too. It's like with large storage sizes and loading up your internal drives, at first it feels great to have 12TB internally but then you need a new machine, how do you move that 12TB of data to your new machine? What do you do when you run out of space or need to back it up, you can't put more inside so you have to go external after all. When you find one Mac Pro isn't fast enough, you have to start network rendering just like you would with any other machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah 
Cute video

Here's one where the Mac Pro buyer is explaining to Apple that they are the ones who are out there fighting for their cause but they just need to look less embarrassed doing it:

post #157 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


They did amazing jobs manually cutting film in old mechanical machines and in some cases prefer it. You get a different mindset with limited technology. If you have to manually chop a piece of footage, it's a more important decision to make so you make it more carefully. When you work on a slower machine, you are similarly forced to find ways to optimize your work.

 

This is probably the best argument I've yet heard for the Mini or iMac over a Mac Pro.  Get sh!t done slower, so you have more time to think.  Think carefully about optimizing your work.  

 

It's also amusing that the Apple hardware defenders keep mentioning the "Pegasus".  That just proves how limited fast external drive options are for Apple's disposable hardware -  you have one brand a couple models to choose.  Of course Thunderbolt storage has limited bandwidth compared to the professional SAS solutions for a Mac Pro, but you know that.  

 

 

post #158 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



Here's one where the Mac Pro buyer is explaining to Apple that they are the ones who are out there fighting for their cause but they just need to look less embarrassed doing it:

this video is well cute also.
post #159 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 
This is probably the best argument I've yet heard for the Mini or iMac over a Mac Pro. Get sh!t done slower, so you have more time to think. Think carefully about optimizing your work.

You don't necessarily get things done noticeably slower. Productivity doesn't scale directly with raw hardware performance.

Having a machine that is 3x faster doesn't mean that you finish a job 3x quicker unless it's all raw processing. If you spend 20 hours editing a 60 minute video, it takes 20 hours on every machine. When you export, it might take 1.5 hours on the Mini and 0.5 hour on the top of the line Mac Pro (not likely as video encoding doesn't scale like that either). You've saved 1 hour out of 21.5 hours (5% more productive).

Even if you do effects and you render out a 15 minute render every hour on a low-end machine in an 8-hour day, the MP would save 8 x 10 minutes = 80 minutes.

HP tried to work this out and remember they are trying to sell people on the idea of buying higher powered machines:

http://h20331.www2.hp.com/Hpsub/downloads/Multi-Processor_WhitePaper_090611.pdf

Even though they are claiming 45-95% more productivity for adding a second CPU, they are quoting savings of 1.5-2 hours a day. That's nowhere near 45%, which is no doubt why they added their 'conservative' graph at the end. Sure an hour or two a day can save money over a period of time but a lot of things can save that time too and where does it end? Why stop at two processors, why not four? Does having two machines help? You can't just tack on power and assume it's going to make a big difference to a human-limited task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg 
It's also amusing that the Apple hardware defenders keep mentioning the "Pegasus". That just proves how limited fast external drive options are for Apple's disposable hardware - you have one brand a couple models to choose. Of course Thunderbolt storage has limited bandwidth compared to the professional SAS solutions for a Mac Pro, but you know that.

Yes, this has been covered in the past. There are more drives than the Pegasus (Lacie for example and USB 3 drives), it just happens to be one of the better performing ones. SAS setups don't really offer much more practical bandwidth than Thunderbolt because you hit the read/write speeds of the drive much sooner, but you know that.
post #160 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




While having more resources to play with gives you a higher bound on creative freedom, it gives you a freedom to be wreckless too. It's like with large storage sizes and loading up your internal drives, at first it feels great to have 12TB internally but then you need a new machine, how do you move that 12TB of data to your new machine? What do you do when you run out of space or need to back it up, you can't put more inside so you have to go external after all. When you find one Mac Pro isn't fast enough, you have to start network rendering just like you would with any other machine.
Here's one where the Mac Pro buyer is explaining to Apple that they are the ones who are out there fighting for their cause but they just need to look less embarrassed doing it:
 

You've drifted into hyperbole with the video links. I'm starting to wonder if Tallest gained control of your account. These problems are regularly addressed. If you're keeping a lot of storage internally, it's typical to leave the boot drive out of that. Single volumes can be transplanted later. I wouldn't personally use Raided internal drives for storage, which is what you seem to suggest here. With single volumes just move them. If you need real storage, you have a much wider range of available HBAs and RAID or JBOD boxes that can be used with a Mac Pro, although usb3 will probably cannibalize the lower end of this. The capabilities existed prior to thunderbolt. In case you are curious what annoys me, it comes down to the choices available when locked to a single company. With the imac, it would displace the use of superior displays. I can't fit both. The internals are probably enough. With the mini, the gpu would choke. I already choke it anyway. I've considered going to Windows simply because you can find a wider range of cards. If I did that, the machine I'd end up with would probably be something like an E5 hex core, 2 PCI cards with one being a mid range Quadro and the other being an HBA, as much ram as it would hold, and I'd stick with NEC or Eizo on displays going forward. Ironically I might consider a Fermi card. Kepler is terrible at floating point math.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › OS X 10.8.3 beta supports AMD Radeon 7000 drivers, hinting at Apple's new Mac Pro