If Jobs doesn't want to use screws, there is no good reason Apple couldn't put the LCD screen on a hinge, and allow it to swing out to facilitate upgrades. That would be a huge iMac selling point for Pros.
If you mean like the Lucite Macs, I'd be for that.
i liked the way my G4 tower opened. Pull the ring and the guts come out to lie horizontally. It made for very easy installation.
Sawtooth motherboards began at 400mhz, and then went to the Dual configs.
I know this because I own and still use a Sawtooth 400mhz (upgraded to an almost unrecognizable point now.)
Beautiful machine in its day.
The only other problem with your analysis is that Apple is trying to find ways to trim the sticker prices on Macs, and keeping the entry level Pro at US$2500. is a problem in this economy.
Maybe they go dualie and keep the a cut-down single chip machine at $2000. or something.
Sorry, I never said that Yikes! was 400MHz? Sorry for any confusion?
My point was that Yikes! was essentially 'Diet' Sawtooth, and similarly, the current 4xMac Pro is essentially 'Diet' current 8xMac Pro. Like Yikes!, the current 4xMac Pro is in many respects technically inferior to the 'full sugar' 8x Mac Pro. Compare the memory bandwidths of the 4x and 8x and you'll see what I mean.
For the record, Apple developed two versions of the G4 system board concurrently - Yikes! and Sawtooth. In many respects Yikes! was a half-way house between where the latter G3s were and what they wanted to achieve with the new G4 platform. Yikes! was a fallback position.
G4 (Sawtooth) was originally announced at 400-450-500MHz, but they were pulled shortly thereafter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't a single one of those initial 500MHz machines that worked. So Apple U-turned and announced a new 350-400-450MHz line up, with the half-way house Yikes! stepping in at the 350MHz configuration.
The Yikes! motherboard itself looked entirely different to the Sawtooth motherboard, with the new G4 chip being installed in a ZIF socket with a modestly sized heatsink. The Sawtooth motherboard by contrast, featured one of the largest heatsinks to be found in a desktop machine at that point.
Once the 500MHz configuration was stable, it was reintroduced and the 350MHz Yikes! was dropped.
I understand the points made about sticker price and component prices. They are good points ? but based purely on historical evidence I still think Apple will drop the current 4x implementation and adopt the 8x daughterboard across the range.
But SSDs are nowhere in size as current HDDs, plus they are still fairly pricey.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
I imagine once SSD drives for laptops and desktops reach above 256GB, and are below a $1/gb, they will take off fast.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
The real question is what performance is worth to you in your applications. For nearly every application, SSDs are faster and more reliable than HDs or even RAID HDs. Let's suppose the speed difference is 4x and consider a large database. Keeping the indices on SSD greatly speeds up the search, even if the tables themselves must live in a 10TB array. If the effect on throughput is 2x from having an SSD, the reduction is hardware and rack space far exceeds the cost differential of the SSD.
In the consumer space, the rapid application launch speeds and general snappiness may allow you to defer an upgrade for another 18-24 months. Here the SSD is less compelling but still has a cost advantage.
As with any system, analyze the bottlenecks. The human is often the primary one. Beyond that, I have seen the CPU, available DRAM, drive I/O speed, and internal bus as bottlenecks in different scenarios. My applications will clearly benefit from an upgrade and a Nehalem Pro plus Intel SSD should work quite nicely in the servers. I find it odd that there is only a $100 differential between getting two 2.93 GHz 4 cores and a single 2.93 GHz 8 core. For my purposes, system redundancies strongly favor using a number of 4 core machines.
I would like to see in a Aug / Sept update:
* 2.66 GHz as the base 8 core model (at the price of the 2.26)
* OR the 2.4 GHz L5530 as the base 8 core processor (given the lower TDP)
* 3.06 GHz or 3.2 GHz in the 4 core model (and would be willing to pay more for 3.2 GHz)
* The 3.33 GHz W5590 as an option in the 8 core (though the higher TDP would be an issue).
It's strange that a week's gone by and there's been no movement on the Pro line.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
It's strange that a week's gone by and there's been no movement on the Pro line.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
The question is...when?
Yea I'd agree with the 3 ghz threshold aspect. I remember Jobs making somewhat of a to-do about that when the whole Intel switch began. I also recall he said that when the G5 was introduced that it would be the first processor to get to 3GHZ by "years end" or whatever...but now multiple cores is the thing. So clock speed has taken the back-burner. It should be interesting.
I think my next Mac that will replace my G5 will be a 15" Macbook Pro though. No more desktops for me.
I don't understand. You talk as if there aren't any, there are two front mounted USB ports on every Mac Pro since the first one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Apple, for some reason, hates the mid-range idea. Probably because it would kill the iMac and leave them looking like just another PC tower supplier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensign Pulver
If by probably you mean exactly, then yes.
I don't see that a mid-tower is any threat to an AIO, I see the problem is that a mid-tower is more likely a threat to the workstation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
For all the "we're care for the environment" nonsense Apple spews, they want you to replace your system (including monitor) every three years. The iMac is the easiest way of achieving that.
Most people don't replace their computers every 2-3 years. The average consumer uses their computer for about four or more years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
If you mean like the Lucite Macs, I'd be for that.
i liked the way my G4 tower opened. Pull the ring and the guts come out to lie horizontally. It made for very easy installation.
How often do you really need to get in there? The current Mac pros are fine in this respect. I think even better given the drive rail system.
The only way you'll enjoy a ~$1,000 tower running OSX is if you build it yourself. A hackintosh. This is where I'm unfortunately being forced to. I want to spend about $1K, and I know I can get some pretty hefty muscle on the PC side for this money, but there are just zero options on the mac side. The iMacs will always sport dinky little processors glued to that screen, so that's out. The mini is very weak. And the MP start at over $2K. It's crazy. Yeah, I'm sure Apple ran the numbers and it makes sense to them economically, but it leaves a lot of people with no real options. Hence the hackintosh - even though I hate the fact that most likely there will always be some kind of problems with stability or able to run all apps and all functions. But what choice is there? To me it's insane that the MP start at $2500 or so. I just cannot justify that for myself (for others I'm sure that's just dandy).
It's strange that a week's gone by and there's been no movement on the Pro line.
This isn't strange at all if you think about it. The Pro is well a Pro machine and I suspect Apple would be very happy with annual updates. Pro users are far more concerned about well tested and reliable hardware, something Apple is fairly good at delivering. The Mac Pro is an excellent and stable platform to deliver apps on, there is good reason for keeping it that way.
Quote:
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
The Pros image is fine. I just find it hilarious that you dare compare a Xeon to a laptop chip and then think that Pro users would be the least bit concerned. Pro users know very well what the chip in the unit will do for them.
Quote:
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
It would be nice but I haven't heard of chip set support for it yet. More importantly it is already to slow for SOlid State Storage, so I'd like to see a move to PCI Express storage modules. SATA has been around a long time and is getting a little creaky - time for something new.
Quote:
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
Personally I'd rather that they flush optical drives down the toilet. They are an expense that these days serves a very limited audience. That being said though I can see where they would still be needed on the Pro, maybe even multiple units.
Quote:
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
Yes I suspect this will be huge in the near future. Not for consistencies sake but because it is a smart move for the future. On some machines such a port would be a huge win. One example being XServe where an SD slot could replace the optical drive while freeing up space for more storage modules and better air flow. SD would be a big win on the Mini too, as it would free up space for more powerful processors and better cooling.
Quote:
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
Well yeah the same case makes sense. Apple has otherwise been surprising us with it's hardware upgrades of late so maybe we will get more than expected.
Quote:
The question is...when?
Early 2010 would be my guess. I don't track the Pro heavily as it is more machine than I need but I don't see a need to rush an upgrade.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The Pros image is fine. I just find it hilarious that you dare compare a Xeon to a laptop chip and then think that Pro users would be the least bit concerned. Pro users know very well what the chip in the unit will do for them.
I should hope so.
Quote:
Personally I'd rather that they flush optical drives down the toilet. They are an expense that these days serves a very limited audience. That being said though I can see where they would still be needed on the Pro, maybe even multiple units.
Desktop optical drives cost is trivial though, and when you're considering pro software, you're not going to be cheaply distributing it on SDHC cards or over the web, most pro software is installed from several discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It would be nice but I haven't heard of chip set support for it yet. More importantly it is already to slow for SOlid State Storage, so I'd like to see a move to PCI Express storage modules. SATA has been around a long time and is getting a little creaky - time for something new.
Is it really? In the grand scheme of drive controller types, it's not been around so long. How many drives are hitting the limit of 3Gbps link? I looked around and it looked like even SSDs are only hitting half that yet. It seems that a 6Gbps should give it plenty more headroom.
Comments
If Jobs doesn't want to use screws, there is no good reason Apple couldn't put the LCD screen on a hinge, and allow it to swing out to facilitate upgrades. That would be a huge iMac selling point for Pros.
If you mean like the Lucite Macs, I'd be for that.
i liked the way my G4 tower opened. Pull the ring and the guts come out to lie horizontally. It made for very easy installation.
scuttlebutt's what?
Ah yes..thank you. I didn't catch that. Im not a great typist.
Excellent point, with one minor error.
The Yikes motherboard was 350mhz, not the 400.
Sawtooth motherboards began at 400mhz, and then went to the Dual configs.
I know this because I own and still use a Sawtooth 400mhz (upgraded to an almost unrecognizable point now.)
Beautiful machine in its day.
The only other problem with your analysis is that Apple is trying to find ways to trim the sticker prices on Macs, and keeping the entry level Pro at US$2500. is a problem in this economy.
Maybe they go dualie and keep the a cut-down single chip machine at $2000. or something.
Sorry, I never said that Yikes! was 400MHz? Sorry for any confusion?
My point was that Yikes! was essentially 'Diet' Sawtooth, and similarly, the current 4xMac Pro is essentially 'Diet' current 8xMac Pro. Like Yikes!, the current 4xMac Pro is in many respects technically inferior to the 'full sugar' 8x Mac Pro. Compare the memory bandwidths of the 4x and 8x and you'll see what I mean.
For the record, Apple developed two versions of the G4 system board concurrently - Yikes! and Sawtooth. In many respects Yikes! was a half-way house between where the latter G3s were and what they wanted to achieve with the new G4 platform. Yikes! was a fallback position.
G4 (Sawtooth) was originally announced at 400-450-500MHz, but they were pulled shortly thereafter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't a single one of those initial 500MHz machines that worked. So Apple U-turned and announced a new 350-400-450MHz line up, with the half-way house Yikes! stepping in at the 350MHz configuration.
The Yikes! motherboard itself looked entirely different to the Sawtooth motherboard, with the new G4 chip being installed in a ZIF socket with a modestly sized heatsink. The Sawtooth motherboard by contrast, featured one of the largest heatsinks to be found in a desktop machine at that point.
Once the 500MHz configuration was stable, it was reintroduced and the 350MHz Yikes! was dropped.
I understand the points made about sticker price and component prices. They are good points ? but based purely on historical evidence I still think Apple will drop the current 4x implementation and adopt the 8x daughterboard across the range.
Could be wrong!
SSDs have come out of nowhere and the price is falling fast and they are maxing out current SATA.
Since Apple control their own hardware, unlike Microsoft, they should be able to adapt faster to sudden unexpected changes in hardware.
I think they need a minor update to get the faster SATA and the SSDs in there.
SSDs have come out of nowhere and the price is falling fast and they are maxing out current SATA.
But SSDs are nowhere in size as current HDDs, plus they are still fairly pricey.
But SSDs are nowhere in size as current HDDs, plus they are still fairly pricey.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
I imagine once SSD drives for laptops and desktops reach above 256GB, and are below a $1/gb, they will take off fast.
Pricing is relative. Too many people are comparing SSD against consumer laptop drives when they should be comparing SSD to the pricing of 2.5" Enterprise drives like the Seagate Savvio line.
Then size and pricing of SSD begins to make a bit more sense.
The real question is what performance is worth to you in your applications. For nearly every application, SSDs are faster and more reliable than HDs or even RAID HDs. Let's suppose the speed difference is 4x and consider a large database. Keeping the indices on SSD greatly speeds up the search, even if the tables themselves must live in a 10TB array. If the effect on throughput is 2x from having an SSD, the reduction is hardware and rack space far exceeds the cost differential of the SSD.
In the consumer space, the rapid application launch speeds and general snappiness may allow you to defer an upgrade for another 18-24 months. Here the SSD is less compelling but still has a cost advantage.
As with any system, analyze the bottlenecks. The human is often the primary one. Beyond that, I have seen the CPU, available DRAM, drive I/O speed, and internal bus as bottlenecks in different scenarios. My applications will clearly benefit from an upgrade and a Nehalem Pro plus Intel SSD should work quite nicely in the servers. I find it odd that there is only a $100 differential between getting two 2.93 GHz 4 cores and a single 2.93 GHz 8 core. For my purposes, system redundancies strongly favor using a number of 4 core machines.
I would like to see in a Aug / Sept update:
* 2.66 GHz as the base 8 core model (at the price of the 2.26)
* OR the 2.4 GHz L5530 as the base 8 core processor (given the lower TDP)
* 3.06 GHz or 3.2 GHz in the 4 core model (and would be willing to pay more for 3.2 GHz)
* The 3.33 GHz W5590 as an option in the 8 core (though the higher TDP would be an issue).
* SATA 3.0
* Intel SSDs as a BTO option
Not holding my breath, however.
I would like to see in a Aug / Sept update:
* 2.66 GHz as the base 8 core model (at the price of the 2.26)
* OR the 2.4 GHz L5530 as the base 8 core processor (given the lower TDP)
* 3.06 GHz or 3.2 GHz in the 4 core model (and would be willing to pay more for 3.2 GHz)
* The 3.33 GHz W5590 as an option in the 8 core (though the higher TDP would be an issue).
* SATA 3.0
* Intel SSDs as a BTO option
Well, the new chips have been announced. Let's see what Apple's next move is, if any.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
The question is...when?
Well, the new chips have been announced. Let's see what Apple's next move is, if any.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117179
Now at those prices it's going to take a while:
Intel Xeon W5580 Nehalem 3.2GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Server Processor - Retail $1,659.99
It's strange that a week's gone by and there's been no movement on the Pro line.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
The question is...when?
Yea I'd agree with the 3 ghz threshold aspect. I remember Jobs making somewhat of a to-do about that when the whole Intel switch began. I also recall he said that when the G5 was introduced that it would be the first processor to get to 3GHZ by "years end" or whatever...but now multiple cores is the thing. So clock speed has taken the back-burner. It should be interesting.
I think my next Mac that will replace my G5 will be a 15" Macbook Pro though. No more desktops for me.
Front mounted USB ports!
I don't understand. You talk as if there aren't any, there are two front mounted USB ports on every Mac Pro since the first one.
Apple, for some reason, hates the mid-range idea. Probably because it would kill the iMac and leave them looking like just another PC tower supplier.
If by probably you mean exactly, then yes.
I don't see that a mid-tower is any threat to an AIO, I see the problem is that a mid-tower is more likely a threat to the workstation.
For all the "we're care for the environment" nonsense Apple spews, they want you to replace your system (including monitor) every three years. The iMac is the easiest way of achieving that.
Most people don't replace their computers every 2-3 years. The average consumer uses their computer for about four or more years now.
If you mean like the Lucite Macs, I'd be for that.
i liked the way my G4 tower opened. Pull the ring and the guts come out to lie horizontally. It made for very easy installation.
How often do you really need to get in there? The current Mac pros are fine in this respect. I think even better given the drive rail system.
I don't understand. You talk as if there aren't any, there are two front mounted USB ports on every Mac Pro since the first one.
How often do you really need to get in there? The current Mac pros are fine in this respect. I think even better given the drive rail system.
I could be mistaken, but I think both these points were being made about the iMac (even though we're in a Mac Pro thread.)
Edit: Wizard was indeed talking about the Pro needing front mounted USB ports (something it already has.)
I could be mistaken, but I think both these points were being made about the iMac (even though we're in a Mac Pro thread.)
Edit: Wizard was indeed talking about the Pro needing front mounted USB ports (something it already has.)
I didn't notice you also mentioned iMacs back there. Never mind on that one then.
What we'd like to see isn't gonna happen.
You'll never know...
It's strange that a week's gone by and there's been no movement on the Pro line.
This isn't strange at all if you think about it. The Pro is well a Pro machine and I suspect Apple would be very happy with annual updates. Pro users are far more concerned about well tested and reliable hardware, something Apple is fairly good at delivering. The Mac Pro is an excellent and stable platform to deliver apps on, there is good reason for keeping it that way.
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
The Pros image is fine. I just find it hilarious that you dare compare a Xeon to a laptop chip and then think that Pro users would be the least bit concerned. Pro users know very well what the chip in the unit will do for them.
As far as features:
? SATA 3 should be a given.
It would be nice but I haven't heard of chip set support for it yet. More importantly it is already to slow for SOlid State Storage, so I'd like to see a move to PCI Express storage modules. SATA has been around a long time and is getting a little creaky - time for something new.
? If Blu-Ray is going to the iMac, you would think it would land in the Pro line first.
Personally I'd rather that they flush optical drives down the toilet. They are an expense that these days serves a very limited audience. That being said though I can see where they would still be needed on the Pro, maybe even multiple units.
? SD reader? Maybe for consistency's sake.
Yes I suspect this will be huge in the near future. Not for consistencies sake but because it is a smart move for the future. On some machines such a port would be a huge win. One example being XServe where an SD slot could replace the optical drive while freeing up space for more storage modules and better air flow. SD would be a big win on the Mini too, as it would free up space for more powerful processors and better cooling.
That's my prediction. Silent bump with upgraded processors and 3 internal upgrades. Same case.
Well yeah the same case makes sense. Apple has otherwise been surprising us with it's hardware upgrades of late so maybe we will get more than expected.
The question is...when?
Early 2010 would be my guess. I don't track the Pro heavily as it is more machine than I need but I don't see a need to rush an upgrade.
Dave
You would think that Apple would be keen to move the Mac Pro over the 3GHZ threshold, since the top end iMac is already there. (I know the chips are different, but it's an image thing.)
The Pros image is fine. I just find it hilarious that you dare compare a Xeon to a laptop chip and then think that Pro users would be the least bit concerned. Pro users know very well what the chip in the unit will do for them.
I should hope so.
Personally I'd rather that they flush optical drives down the toilet. They are an expense that these days serves a very limited audience. That being said though I can see where they would still be needed on the Pro, maybe even multiple units.
Desktop optical drives cost is trivial though, and when you're considering pro software, you're not going to be cheaply distributing it on SDHC cards or over the web, most pro software is installed from several discs.
It would be nice but I haven't heard of chip set support for it yet. More importantly it is already to slow for SOlid State Storage, so I'd like to see a move to PCI Express storage modules. SATA has been around a long time and is getting a little creaky - time for something new.
Is it really? In the grand scheme of drive controller types, it's not been around so long. How many drives are hitting the limit of 3Gbps link? I looked around and it looked like even SSDs are only hitting half that yet. It seems that a 6Gbps should give it plenty more headroom.