All that processing power would be great for video editing... if only they would offer Blu-Ray on it.
Though there wouldn't be OS support for BR movie playback, it's easy enough to add a 3rd party BD-R drive from a place like OWC or someplace similar. That would work just fine with FC7, Compressor & Toast.
I'm totally not singling you out to beat up on you; this sentiment is frequently expressed here. It's not true, though.
The first Mac Pro was announced in August of 06. The second revision came out in January 2008, 17 months later. The third revision hit in March of 09, 14 months later. It's dumb to talk about the average of only two data points, but if we wanted to be dumb, we'd say the average is 15 and a half months.
We're just 12 months past the last Mac Pro release. If we got one in March, it would in fact be the fastest Mac Pro revision in Apple history. If we get one in July, it'll be 16 months, which is right on the "average," to the extent that we can talk about an average.
The presumptive 2010 Mac Pro won't be "late" unless it fails to arrive before the first of September.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984
All that processing power would be great for video editing... if only they would offer Blu-Ray on it.
Of course editing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Blu-Ray, but that's just being pedantic. If all you're talking about is burning Blu-Ray discs for client approval, you can do that right now with Final Cut Pro 7 and a third-party Blu-Ray drive. Very few people do this; regular old DVD is what clients want, because that's what they can play.
If you're talking about full-on authoring, then that's got nothing to do with hardware support. Blu-Ray authoring is a giant pain in the ass, even more so than DVD authoring which is still a not-insignificant pain to this day. Blu-Ray disc authoring is done by pros who specialize in it, using really specific tools for the job. There's just no real demand for low-end Blu-Ray authoring right now, because of the combination of really low demand for Blu-Ray discs overall and the pain-in-the-ass factor that comes with it. Maybe this'll change in two or three years, but not anytime real soon.
it's nice to hear about apple [formerly apple computer] updating their computers.
i like phones and pads and pods, but i can't do my day-to-day graphic design work on my iphone.
I believe the 27 will replace the 24 just as it did in the iMac line.
I don't know what market they're aiming it at. The LED backlighting used in the iMac has a low colour gamut so I suspect they'll use a different (read "more expensive") backlighting solution in the Cinema Display variant. Maybe they'll also use more expensive glass that does a better job of cutting glare without distorting colour.
I'm totally not singling you out to beat up on you; this sentiment is frequently expressed here. It's not true, though.
The first Mac Pro was announced in August of 06. The second revision came out in January 2008, 17 months later. The third revision hit in March of 09, 14 months later. It's dumb to talk about the average of only two data points, but if we wanted to be dumb, we'd say the average is 15 and a half months.
We're just 12 months past the last Mac Pro release. If we got one in March, it would in fact be the fastest Mac Pro revision in Apple history. If we get one in July, it'll be 16 months, which is right on the "average," to the extent that we can talk about an average.
The presumptive 2010 Mac Pro won't be "late" unless it fails to arrive before the first of September.
It's still longer than the average update cycle for all 'pro' Macs. What makes matters worse is that there are sufficient CPU successors out, and out long enough to account for any ramp up for Apple's excessive needs. It seems that Apple is waiting for other reasons other than technical.
1) Having more RAM doesn't make it a better machine.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
Point 1 is debatable.
Point 2 is down right wrong. Show me evidence that Macs use less RAM than other computers.
Modern Macs use UNIX style virtual memory where any available RAM is used as a disc cache. The more RAM you have the faster your machine will run. Over time your machine will keep files loaded in RAM, even if you have a monumental amount of memory once your machine has been running for a few days it will be all used up.
Apple Macs have plenty of real advantages over other machines without you making ones up.
1) Having more RAM doesn't make it a better machine.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
1) I didn't say that makes it a better machine, I was just pointing out Apple's habit of nickel and diming customers. Why do $800-1000 PCs, which AI forum members accuse of trying to cut every corner to offer low prices, have more memory than a $2500 top of the line workstation. Apple is notoriously stingy with RAM and hard drives, though not as bad as they used to be.
2) Snow Leopard on my unibody MBP with only 2 GB RAM was ridiculously slow. I frequently got beach balls from scrolling down a web page even with Click to Flash blocking and just Safari, Mail, iCal, iTunes open, . It would usually be OK at first but would gradually slow down, requiring a restart. Since upgrading to 4 GB, it's performed phenomenally, even with lots of apps open. As for crapware, yes that's an issue, but I've always just used a clean install of Windows.
It's still longer than the average update cycle for all 'pro' Macs.
Well, it's hard to compare it to the MacBook Pro, because the releases have been all weird. First the 15, then later the 17, then the 13, and ?*bleh. I'm not motivated to go sort it all out. Suffice to say that no, the Mac Pro is decidedly not behind schedule, and it's silly to assert that it is by comparing its releases to some other releases of some other unrelated product.
Quote:
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
Er. That's not really accurate at all. If anything, Macs benefit more from having "excess" RAM ? that is, RAM that's not allocated to running applications ? because of the kernel's aggressive caching.
(Whoops, I see that Senjaz said almost exactly the same thing before me. Props, Senjaz.)
Well, it's hard to compare it to the MacBook Pro, because the releases have been all weird. First the 15, then later the 17, then the 13, and ?*bleh. I'm not motivated to go sort it all out. Suffice to say that no, the Mac Pro is decidedly not behind schedule, and it's silly to assert that it is by comparing its releases to some other releases of some other unrelated product.
What's to compare? The word "average" has a meaning and I've posted a site that records the days between releases. They are well over the average release which people use to gauge when they buy their next Mac. I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
Quote:
Er. That's not really accurate at all. If anything, Macs benefit more from having "excess" RAM ? that is, RAM that's not allocated to running applications ? because of the kernel's aggressive caching.
(Whoops, I see that Senjaz said almost exactly the same thing before me. Props, Senjaz.)
There are more than a few tests that show that OEM crapware makes their machines require more RAM to run effectively than a Mac, which has none. We're not talking about some clean room experiment of Windows v. Mac OS X, but OEM PC v. Mac. Again, I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
I just bought two 24" displays a couple months ago because I gave up on Apple releasing a larger display. Just... damn.
Did you sleep through the 30" Cinema Display launch several years ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD
And true mutiltasking not just ipod music playing in the background as only people on this site think is real multitasking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD
I have yet to use that feature ever and really don't see a reason for me needing it. Most people I speak to don't need me to do their research for them while I'm talking to them and I usually know what I'm talking about before I speak. On the other hand when either writing an email or text I can't presently multitask to the internet which is when I really need THAT feature.
To those that use it when speaking on the phone- good for you. That's more an AT&T feature anyway not Apple's.
First, why in the world are you whining about the iPad's multitasking in a Mac Pro thread (other than, of course, your incessant whining about anything from Apple)?
More importantly, I'm still waiting for you to explain what multitasking you need that it won't do. The example you gave is not particularly helpful - you have nearly instant task switching, so if you're writing an email or text and have to go to the Internet to get facts (not that you've ever felt constrained to stick to facts, but anyway..), you switch to Safari, get your information, and switch back. True multitasking wouldn't speed that process up one bit - unless you expect two screens on the iPad, two sets of eyes, and two pairs of hands.
I'm getting really sick of this 'iPads won't multitask' nonsense. Do you expect to play a game while you're browsing the web? Write a report while playing a game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar
Well if they have fixed the issue with the yellow tinge on 27" displays can someone explain why my 3rd 27" iMac replacement that was delivered yesterday straight from the Shanghai factory still has the problem.
They made those specially for you. Apparently, the problem is quite rare, but no one said that it never happened.
What's to compare? The word "average" has a meaning and I've posted a site that records the days between releases.
Did you? Oh, I didn't notice. Your link was garbled so I guess my eyes skipped right over it.
That site has some kind of serious problem going on. They list Mac Pro release dates going all the way back to 2002. The Mac Pro literally did not exist then. Maybe they're counting the old Power Mac G5? No, can't be, because that debuted in June of 03, and they've got dates in 2002. They must be counting the Power Mac G4, was was a totally different product. How far back do they go? The original Power Macintoshes? The Mac II?
Their numbers are bogus. Their forecast may or may not be, but it's simply untrue to say that new Mac Pros are late, or that the time since the 2009 release and today is longer than average. The only way you can make that argument is if you count release intervals for other, non-Mac Pro products, which makes no sense at all.
Quote:
There are more than a few tests that show that OEM crapware makes their machines require more RAM to run effectively than a Mac, which has none. We're not talking about some clean room experiment of Windows v. Mac OS X, but OEM PC v. Mac. Again, I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
Okay. I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that Apple sells Mac Pros with too little, too much, or just the right amount of RAM? Frankly, I've totally lost track of why we started talking about non-Apple computers at all, since that's not the topic.
Did you sleep through the 30" Cinema Display launch several years ago?
No sir I did not, but apparently you've been asleep since then, as the larger LED ACD has yet to happen.
When I said I purchased the 24" because Apple hadn't released a larger version, I meant just that. Apple has not yet, but may soon, released a larger version of the 24" display.
Did you? Oh, I didn't notice. Your link was garbled so I guess my eyes skipped right over it.
That site has some kind of serious problem going on. They list Mac Pro release dates going all the way back to 2002. The Mac Pro literally did not exist then. Maybe they're counting the old Power Mac G5? No, can't be, because that debuted in June of 03, and they've got dates in 2002. They must be counting the Power Mac G4, was was a totally different product. How far back do they go? The original Power Macintoshes? The Mac II?
Their numbers are bogus. Their forecast may or may not be, but it's simply untrue to say that new Mac Pros are late, or that the time since the 2009 release and today is longer than average. The only way you can make that argument is if you count release intervals for other, non-Mac Pro products, which makes no sense at all.
Okay. I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that Apple sells Mac Pros with too little, too much, or just the right amount of RAM? Frankly, I've totally lost track of why we started talking about non-Apple computers at all, since that's not the topic.
1) Fixed the link, but I see you got it.
2) There numbers are not bogus that is a list of Apple's towers, not just the Mac Pro. this is to get an idea of when Apple is likely to update for a machine class based on historical data. Pretty simple.
3) You can easily mouse-over the dates to see which machine the update was referring to. If you only count the Mac Pros We're still past the average. This also goes for the MacBook Pro. (Why am I explaining mouse overs?)
4) Stonefree stated, "Even cheap Dell desktops have more RAM in their stock configurations [than Macs]. This is true and pointed out one reason as to why it's needed.
• MacBook using 288MB RAM on 1st boot up — (image)
Yes, put me down for a >= 30" LED Cinema Display whenever they release one. Something tells me that they might (eventually) release a larger-than-30" to differentiate from the 27". Who knows.
I love this 30" ACD. I could be argued into swapping it for two 27", but only if they're matte and have similar color.
There numbers are not bogus that is a list of Apple's towers, not just the Mac Pro. this is to get an idea of when Apple is likely to update for a machine class based on historical data. Pretty simple.
Pretty silly, as well. Plot unrelated data points on a curve and you get a squiggly line indicating absolutely nothing. The components in a Power Mac G4 were sourced from different suppliers than those in a Mac Pro, and were released on a totally unrelated schedule. There's no useful information there. You have to compare apples to apples, as the old saying goes.
Quote:
If you only count the Mac Pros We're still past the average.
Sigh. That's incorrect. Not morally or subjectively but mathematically. There've been three Mac Pro models, released 14 and 17 months apart. It's now twelve months since the last one. What's the problem here? Why are we still arguing about this?
Quote:
(Why am I explaining mouse overs?)
My best guess? You're trying with tooth and claw to defend your assertion (oft echoed, unfortunately) that the presumed 2010 Mac Pro is overdue. Oh, but if you plot the release dates against the price of wholesale macaroni and then tilt your head thirty degrees to the right, you can clearly see something something whatever.
Quote:
Stonefree stated, "Even cheap Dell desktops have more RAM in their stock configurations [than Macs]. This is true and pointed out one reason as to why it's needed.
Still not seeing your point, but that's no biggie. Conversation is a fine pursuit even if it leads nowhere useful. Not everything has to be productive to be worthwhile.
Pretty silly, as well. Plot unrelated data points on a curve and you get a squiggly line indicating absolutely nothing. The components in a Power Mac G4 were sourced from different suppliers than those in a Mac Pro, and were released on a totally unrelated schedule. There's no useful information there. You have to compare apples to apples, as the old saying goes.
Sigh. That's incorrect. Not morally or subjectively but mathematically. There've been three Mac Pro models, released 14 and 17 months apart. It's now twelve months since the last one. What's the problem here? Why are we still arguing about this?
My best guess? You're trying with tooth and claw to defend your assertion (oft echoed, unfortunately) that the presumed 2010 Mac Pro is overdue. Oh, but if you plot the release dates against the price of wholesale macaroni and then tilt your head thirty degrees to the right, you can clearly see something something whatever.
Still not seeing your point, but that's no biggie. Conversation is a fine pursuit even if it leads nowhere useful. Not everything has to be productive to be worthwhile.
1) I never said it was "over due". I clearly stated it was past the average time between releases as evidenced by the previously provided link.
2) Yes, conversations must have meaning or conversations are pointless. The history of communication doesn't exist because they were intended to be "useless".
3) My point to stonefree is evident. I have no other method of pointing out that crapware bogs down Dells thus requiring more RAM for base models.
Comments
All that processing power would be great for video editing... if only they would offer Blu-Ray on it.
Though there wouldn't be OS support for BR movie playback, it's easy enough to add a 3rd party BD-R drive from a place like OWC or someplace similar. That would work just fine with FC7, Compressor & Toast.
With this longer than average time?
I'm totally not singling you out to beat up on you; this sentiment is frequently expressed here. It's not true, though.
The first Mac Pro was announced in August of 06. The second revision came out in January 2008, 17 months later. The third revision hit in March of 09, 14 months later. It's dumb to talk about the average of only two data points, but if we wanted to be dumb, we'd say the average is 15 and a half months.
We're just 12 months past the last Mac Pro release. If we got one in March, it would in fact be the fastest Mac Pro revision in Apple history. If we get one in July, it'll be 16 months, which is right on the "average," to the extent that we can talk about an average.
The presumptive 2010 Mac Pro won't be "late" unless it fails to arrive before the first of September.
All that processing power would be great for video editing... if only they would offer Blu-Ray on it.
Of course editing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Blu-Ray, but that's just being pedantic. If all you're talking about is burning Blu-Ray discs for client approval, you can do that right now with Final Cut Pro 7 and a third-party Blu-Ray drive. Very few people do this; regular old DVD is what clients want, because that's what they can play.
If you're talking about full-on authoring, then that's got nothing to do with hardware support. Blu-Ray authoring is a giant pain in the ass, even more so than DVD authoring which is still a not-insignificant pain to this day. Blu-Ray disc authoring is done by pros who specialize in it, using really specific tools for the job. There's just no real demand for low-end Blu-Ray authoring right now, because of the combination of really low demand for Blu-Ray discs overall and the pain-in-the-ass factor that comes with it. Maybe this'll change in two or three years, but not anytime real soon.
my guess:
27" / $999 USD
24" / $799 USD
it's nice to hear about apple [formerly apple computer] updating their computers.
i like phones and pads and pods, but i can't do my day-to-day graphic design work on my iphone.
I believe the 27 will replace the 24 just as it did in the iMac line.
I don't know what market they're aiming it at. The LED backlighting used in the iMac has a low colour gamut so I suspect they'll use a different (read "more expensive") backlighting solution in the Cinema Display variant. Maybe they'll also use more expensive glass that does a better job of cutting glare without distorting colour.
I'm totally not singling you out to beat up on you; this sentiment is frequently expressed here. It's not true, though.
The first Mac Pro was announced in August of 06. The second revision came out in January 2008, 17 months later. The third revision hit in March of 09, 14 months later. It's dumb to talk about the average of only two data points, but if we wanted to be dumb, we'd say the average is 15 and a half months.
We're just 12 months past the last Mac Pro release. If we got one in March, it would in fact be the fastest Mac Pro revision in Apple history. If we get one in July, it'll be 16 months, which is right on the "average," to the extent that we can talk about an average.
The presumptive 2010 Mac Pro won't be "late" unless it fails to arrive before the first of September.
It's still longer than the average update cycle for all 'pro' Macs. What makes matters worse is that there are sufficient CPU successors out, and out long enough to account for any ramp up for Apple's excessive needs. It seems that Apple is waiting for other reasons other than technical.
Will it still have a pitiful 3GB of memory in the base configuration? Even cheap Dell desktops have more RAM in their stock configurations.
1) Having more RAM doesn't make it a better machine.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
1) Having more RAM doesn't make it a better machine.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
Point 1 is debatable.
Point 2 is down right wrong. Show me evidence that Macs use less RAM than other computers.
Modern Macs use UNIX style virtual memory where any available RAM is used as a disc cache. The more RAM you have the faster your machine will run. Over time your machine will keep files loaded in RAM, even if you have a monumental amount of memory once your machine has been running for a few days it will be all used up.
Apple Macs have plenty of real advantages over other machines without you making ones up.
30" = overkill. Who's gonna buy those?
30" ACD. That's quite a pricetag.
Walk into any Best Buy. You're lucky if you see 27-inch displays. 9 times out of 10 the largest you'll see is 24-inches.
ME!
I'm a designer/creative
I have one 30" apple display and a couple of 24s...
this setup lets me use lots of palettes and multiple work modes without shuffling windows around
I'd buy a new 30 tomorrow - or a 27 - if they have a matte screen
Show me evidence that Macs use less RAM than other computers.
Exhibit A: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/352927/the-crapware-con
Exhibit A: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/352927/the-crapware-con
Cool, send me the extra sticks that are just going to waste in your machine(s).
1) Having more RAM doesn't make it a better machine.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
1) I didn't say that makes it a better machine, I was just pointing out Apple's habit of nickel and diming customers. Why do $800-1000 PCs, which AI forum members accuse of trying to cut every corner to offer low prices, have more memory than a $2500 top of the line workstation. Apple is notoriously stingy with RAM and hard drives, though not as bad as they used to be.
2) Snow Leopard on my unibody MBP with only 2 GB RAM was ridiculously slow. I frequently got beach balls from scrolling down a web page even with Click to Flash blocking and just Safari, Mail, iCal, iTunes open, . It would usually be OK at first but would gradually slow down, requiring a restart. Since upgrading to 4 GB, it's performed phenomenally, even with lots of apps open. As for crapware, yes that's an issue, but I've always just used a clean install of Windows.
It's still longer than the average update cycle for all 'pro' Macs.
Well, it's hard to compare it to the MacBook Pro, because the releases have been all weird. First the 15, then later the 17, then the 13, and ?*bleh. I'm not motivated to go sort it all out. Suffice to say that no, the Mac Pro is decidedly not behind schedule, and it's silly to assert that it is by comparing its releases to some other releases of some other unrelated product.
2) Other machines also need more RAM than Macs.
Er. That's not really accurate at all. If anything, Macs benefit more from having "excess" RAM ? that is, RAM that's not allocated to running applications ? because of the kernel's aggressive caching.
(Whoops, I see that Senjaz said almost exactly the same thing before me. Props, Senjaz.)
Well, it's hard to compare it to the MacBook Pro, because the releases have been all weird. First the 15, then later the 17, then the 13, and ?*bleh. I'm not motivated to go sort it all out. Suffice to say that no, the Mac Pro is decidedly not behind schedule, and it's silly to assert that it is by comparing its releases to some other releases of some other unrelated product.
What's to compare? The word "average" has a meaning and I've posted a site that records the days between releases. They are well over the average release which people use to gauge when they buy their next Mac. I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
Er. That's not really accurate at all. If anything, Macs benefit more from having "excess" RAM ? that is, RAM that's not allocated to running applications ? because of the kernel's aggressive caching.
(Whoops, I see that Senjaz said almost exactly the same thing before me. Props, Senjaz.)
There are more than a few tests that show that OEM crapware makes their machines require more RAM to run effectively than a Mac, which has none. We're not talking about some clean room experiment of Windows v. Mac OS X, but OEM PC v. Mac. Again, I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
I just bought two 24" displays a couple months ago because I gave up on Apple releasing a larger display. Just... damn.
Did you sleep through the 30" Cinema Display launch several years ago?
And true mutiltasking not just ipod music playing in the background as only people on this site think is real multitasking.
I have yet to use that feature ever and really don't see a reason for me needing it. Most people I speak to don't need me to do their research for them while I'm talking to them and I usually know what I'm talking about before I speak. On the other hand when either writing an email or text I can't presently multitask to the internet which is when I really need THAT feature.
To those that use it when speaking on the phone- good for you. That's more an AT&T feature anyway not Apple's.
First, why in the world are you whining about the iPad's multitasking in a Mac Pro thread (other than, of course, your incessant whining about anything from Apple)?
More importantly, I'm still waiting for you to explain what multitasking you need that it won't do. The example you gave is not particularly helpful - you have nearly instant task switching, so if you're writing an email or text and have to go to the Internet to get facts (not that you've ever felt constrained to stick to facts, but anyway..), you switch to Safari, get your information, and switch back. True multitasking wouldn't speed that process up one bit - unless you expect two screens on the iPad, two sets of eyes, and two pairs of hands.
I'm getting really sick of this 'iPads won't multitask' nonsense. Do you expect to play a game while you're browsing the web? Write a report while playing a game?
Well if they have fixed the issue with the yellow tinge on 27" displays can someone explain why my 3rd 27" iMac replacement that was delivered yesterday straight from the Shanghai factory still has the problem.
They made those specially for you. Apparently, the problem is quite rare, but no one said that it never happened.
What's to compare? The word "average" has a meaning and I've posted a site that records the days between releases.
Did you? Oh, I didn't notice. Your link was garbled so I guess my eyes skipped right over it.
That site has some kind of serious problem going on. They list Mac Pro release dates going all the way back to 2002. The Mac Pro literally did not exist then. Maybe they're counting the old Power Mac G5? No, can't be, because that debuted in June of 03, and they've got dates in 2002. They must be counting the Power Mac G4, was was a totally different product. How far back do they go? The original Power Macintoshes? The Mac II?
Their numbers are bogus. Their forecast may or may not be, but it's simply untrue to say that new Mac Pros are late, or that the time since the 2009 release and today is longer than average. The only way you can make that argument is if you count release intervals for other, non-Mac Pro products, which makes no sense at all.
There are more than a few tests that show that OEM crapware makes their machines require more RAM to run effectively than a Mac, which has none. We're not talking about some clean room experiment of Windows v. Mac OS X, but OEM PC v. Mac. Again, I've posted more than enough proof on the matter.
Okay. I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that Apple sells Mac Pros with too little, too much, or just the right amount of RAM? Frankly, I've totally lost track of why we started talking about non-Apple computers at all, since that's not the topic.
Did you sleep through the 30" Cinema Display launch several years ago?
No sir I did not, but apparently you've been asleep since then, as the larger LED ACD has yet to happen.
When I said I purchased the 24" because Apple hadn't released a larger version, I meant just that. Apple has not yet, but may soon, released a larger version of the 24" display.
That's kind of what half the article was about...
Did you? Oh, I didn't notice. Your link was garbled so I guess my eyes skipped right over it.
That site has some kind of serious problem going on. They list Mac Pro release dates going all the way back to 2002. The Mac Pro literally did not exist then. Maybe they're counting the old Power Mac G5? No, can't be, because that debuted in June of 03, and they've got dates in 2002. They must be counting the Power Mac G4, was was a totally different product. How far back do they go? The original Power Macintoshes? The Mac II?
Their numbers are bogus. Their forecast may or may not be, but it's simply untrue to say that new Mac Pros are late, or that the time since the 2009 release and today is longer than average. The only way you can make that argument is if you count release intervals for other, non-Mac Pro products, which makes no sense at all.
Okay. I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that Apple sells Mac Pros with too little, too much, or just the right amount of RAM? Frankly, I've totally lost track of why we started talking about non-Apple computers at all, since that's not the topic.
1) Fixed the link, but I see you got it.
2) There numbers are not bogus that is a list of Apple's towers, not just the Mac Pro. this is to get an idea of when Apple is likely to update for a machine class based on historical data. Pretty simple.
3) You can easily mouse-over the dates to see which machine the update was referring to. If you only count the Mac Pros We're still past the average. This also goes for the MacBook Pro. (Why am I explaining mouse overs?)
4) Stonefree stated, "Even cheap Dell desktops have more RAM in their stock configurations [than Macs]. This is true and pointed out one reason as to why it's needed.
I love this 30" ACD. I could be argued into swapping it for two 27", but only if they're matte and have similar color.
30" = overkill. Who's gonna buy those?
.
Graphics pros. The people that end up buying the Mac Pros.
There numbers are not bogus that is a list of Apple's towers, not just the Mac Pro. this is to get an idea of when Apple is likely to update for a machine class based on historical data. Pretty simple.
Pretty silly, as well. Plot unrelated data points on a curve and you get a squiggly line indicating absolutely nothing. The components in a Power Mac G4 were sourced from different suppliers than those in a Mac Pro, and were released on a totally unrelated schedule. There's no useful information there. You have to compare apples to apples, as the old saying goes.
If you only count the Mac Pros We're still past the average.
Sigh. That's incorrect. Not morally or subjectively but mathematically. There've been three Mac Pro models, released 14 and 17 months apart. It's now twelve months since the last one. What's the problem here? Why are we still arguing about this?
(Why am I explaining mouse overs?)
My best guess? You're trying with tooth and claw to defend your assertion (oft echoed, unfortunately) that the presumed 2010 Mac Pro is overdue. Oh, but if you plot the release dates against the price of wholesale macaroni and then tilt your head thirty degrees to the right, you can clearly see something something whatever.
Stonefree stated, "Even cheap Dell desktops have more RAM in their stock configurations [than Macs]. This is true and pointed out one reason as to why it's needed.
Still not seeing your point, but that's no biggie. Conversation is a fine pursuit even if it leads nowhere useful. Not everything has to be productive to be worthwhile.
Pretty silly, as well. Plot unrelated data points on a curve and you get a squiggly line indicating absolutely nothing. The components in a Power Mac G4 were sourced from different suppliers than those in a Mac Pro, and were released on a totally unrelated schedule. There's no useful information there. You have to compare apples to apples, as the old saying goes.
Sigh. That's incorrect. Not morally or subjectively but mathematically. There've been three Mac Pro models, released 14 and 17 months apart. It's now twelve months since the last one. What's the problem here? Why are we still arguing about this?
My best guess? You're trying with tooth and claw to defend your assertion (oft echoed, unfortunately) that the presumed 2010 Mac Pro is overdue. Oh, but if you plot the release dates against the price of wholesale macaroni and then tilt your head thirty degrees to the right, you can clearly see something something whatever.
Still not seeing your point, but that's no biggie. Conversation is a fine pursuit even if it leads nowhere useful. Not everything has to be productive to be worthwhile.
1) I never said it was "over due". I clearly stated it was past the average time between releases as evidenced by the previously provided link.
2) Yes, conversations must have meaning or conversations are pointless. The history of communication doesn't exist because they were intended to be "useless".
3) My point to stonefree is evident. I have no other method of pointing out that crapware bogs down Dells thus requiring more RAM for base models.