The short-sightedness of this new case design extends beyond the exclusion of a second optical drive bay. The major flaw is the fact that it only has two HD bays.
I have four 200 gig drives in my current machine. When I move up to the G5, I will be forced to purchase 2 external drive cases in order to use my current drives.
Clutter. Cables. Boxes.
All seem to be quite counter to Apples 'new' clean design philosophy.
Ever thought of using filestorage over network?
Instead of moving your disks, let them stay and make a fileserver out of the machine. If its a new mac it should even have gigabit ethernet, thats fast enough for most people to work from. And then you could use the disk that comes wirh the G5 or put in 2x250 for extra short term storage if those disks on the network aint enough (and its only one cable, yippie! ).
I dont se the problem not being able to have more than 500GB in the box, when there are so many alternatives if you need more space. If you could afford those drives, you could probably afford an x-serve RAID, and thats f--ing filestorage on steroids
Hardware designs is always one of tradeoffs. Cram too much in the box and you need to get extreme on cooling. Apple surely didn't want another G4 Leafblower issue. So what do they do..they reduce the amount of Internal/External expansion and beef up airflow.
This isn't a problem for many new users as over a Terabyte of HD space can be accomodated internally. Optical is another story however "Clutter" just doesn't seem to be a valid concern that warrants Apple expanding the tower(It's large enough as is).
Many of us are not Apple Apologists..we simply realize that you were never guaranteed that the multitude of your legacy products would be accommodated in the G5. There are varying levels of Professional Users. Some are "Matsuian Penny Pinchers"(wink) nothing wrong with that. Some realize that the Computer is the central nervous system for a network but they can abstract the Storage and gain more efficiency.
Neither side is right. There are people who need the extra space and I don't begrudge them.
Like everyone here, i want more for the professional line of mac : more power, more room for upgrade, more performance, less noise, smaller boxes, cheaper price, greater look ...
Apple had to make some choices.
First choice : choose a desktop chip, instead the previous embedded chips. The 2 ghz chip eats 97 watts : good. For the first time there is a serious chip in a mac, and not an embedded chip. People here at AI, have complained that Mot sucks with his embedded chips, contrary to the PC world where the chip where designed for maximum performance and not for the embedded market. Now Apple offered you this chip, and some here will complain that it produce heat ? ridiculous.
Second choice : make something less noisy than the previous tower g4.
In order to make this deal, the new design his free of cable, have lot of air in it, and many fans. The result is more emptiness in the new mac, than the previous one. Consequence of this choice : in order to not make the case bigger than the previous one, there is less room for more HD, or a 2nd optical bay. On a side note, a bigger box means a more expansive one.
in resume : The lack of expandibility for the drives (optical and HD) in the new tower are the consequence of the use of a DESKTOP chip and the noise issue.
I do not wish to harshly or unfairly impugn the motives of anyone who has posted on this thread. I am, however, confused about some of the more vociferous defenses of Apple's single bay design for the new G5. Less than a year ago, Apple, themselves, thought that a second optical bay was important enough to reengineer the El Capitan to include the additional drive bay. Was Apple (gasp) in error then when it made the addition and therefore, acknowledgment of necessity for the addition? Or are they (gasp) in error now? By putting it in the design, Apple encouraged people to populate the space only to say less than a year later that to do so was a bad idea. I don't think so. Even though it is not directly the topic, the same is true of internal drive bays and PCI slots. To follow the logic of some on this board, Apple is now saying "You must have been nuts to actually have invested money in additional drives that we encouraged you to purchase and use!" Again, I do not think so.
Another problem with the theory of "That is a small niche need and therefore unnecessary," is that the whole G5 PM is a niche computer. Do the vast majority of people really need the power of a G5 computer? Does the average person really need digital audio i/o? Do they need 24-bit 96KHz sound? What kind of person uses 8 GBs worth of ram? I'll tell you what kind of person. A professional! By definition, that is a niche market. these same people can, (and in the current G4 case), do use multiple drives, both inside and out. If you cannot imagine why a person would need such expansion or believe there are more suitable options, then these machines were probably not designed with you in mind in the first place. You clearly did not see the need for the MDD revision and you did not populate the extra space. Those who did, now have a serious gripe with the company that one moment enables them to walk on water, and the next moment removes that ability and turns their back on them and leaves them to struggle against the current.
As a side note, this same type of discussion took place when Apple removed the audio in port from their line-up. There were actually those who said that such a port was unnecessary and touted third-party USB options for audio input. They said that pros would use pro breakout boxes and expensive PCI input options for the purpose. I get the feeling that if Apple started shipping computers with no optical drive bay, the same crowd would say that Apple was being a visionary to let us choose our own external drive and provide such a visually uncluttered enclosure.
On a whole, I believe this is a healthy debate, but I believe the question should be framed differently. Not why do we need a second drive bay, but why does Apple not include it. Considering their recent change to accommodate it in their current case design and considering the audience these new machines are intended for? That seems to me to be the real 64 bit... I mean, thousand dollar question.
The theory I posted in the other PM gripe thread, and which still strikes me as the most plausible, is that with the MDD, Apple had to do everything they could think of to pretty up the PowerMac. The basic design had long since been paid for, and the CPU wasn't going anywhere fast, so they ratched internal expansion up as far as the case could tolerate (and as a result, the case was loud).
The G5 is clearly a pricier platform. We still don't know how much the 970 costs, but the fact that the system controller is fabbed on the same technology, the cost of a 500MHz bus, and the need to amortize all the engineering costs - this is partly why the low end starts much higher now. However, it couldn't get too pricey, so Apple had to start cutting out features. The low end model is nerfed relative to the other two; internal drive capacity got cut because, while it's nice, it's used by a niche within a niche.
Also, there is the lately arrived rumor that Apple will be offering PCI and drive expansion chassis connected via PCI-X. If true, that would explain why the PowerMac itself offers merely enough - and it will make the G5 far more expandable than the G4 ever was.
Less than a year ago, Apple, themselves, thought that a second optical bay was important enough to reengineer the El Capitan to include the additional drive bay. Was Apple (gasp) in error then when it made the addition and therefore, acknowledgment of necessity for the addition? Or are they (gasp) in error now? By putting it in the design, Apple encouraged people to populate the space only to say less than a year later that to do so was a bad idea. I don't think so. Even though it is not directly the topic, the same is true of internal drive bays and PCI slots. To follow the logic of some on this board, Apple is now saying "You must have been nuts to actually have invested money in additional drives that we encouraged you to purchase and use!" Again, I do not think so.
As Powerdoc eloquently stated. The Design of the exterior had to follow the changes that the Interior demand. The G4 was an embedded processor which consumed half of what the current 2Ghz 970 have done. So here we have 4x the Thermal output yet some people want the same amount of Bays? Not going to happen. If Apple "encouraged" user to purchase drives that encouragement would apply only to the El Capitan cases. The G5 doesn't even support PATA Drives without an adapter.
Quote:
Another problem with the theory of "That is a small niche need and therefore unnecessary," is that the whole G5 PM is a niche computer. Do the vast majority of people really need the power of a G5 computer? Does the average person really need digital audio i/o? Do they need 24-bit 96KHz sound? What kind of person uses 8 GBs worth of ram? I'll tell you what kind of person. A professional! By definition, that is a niche market. these same people can, (and in the current G4 case), do use multiple drives, both inside and out. If you cannot imagine why a person would need such expansion or believe there are more suitable options, then these machines were probably not designed with you in mind in the first place. You clearly did not see the need for the MDD revision and you did not populate the extra space. Those who did, now have a serious gripe with the company that one moment enables them to walk on water, and the next moment removes that ability and turns their back on them and leaves them to struggle against the current.
That's Business 101. Apple aims to profit by covering the Majority and not the Minority. Personally I want a small Cube with relatively no Internal Expansion. I want it cheap. Howerver I am the minority so I realize why this product has not been made. It's pointless to argue about the merits of what a Professional needs. There is one immutable fact of Business. Problems need solutions. Apple has not prevented anyone from accessing faster Optical drives or utilizing more HD space. It can be done. The arguements we are seeing is one of "clutter". Your last statement is blatantly false. Apple has not "removed" the "ability". That would be to remove all internal bays. They simply have modified that ability. Par for the course.
Quote:
As a side note, this same type of discussion took place when Apple removed the audio in port from their line-up. There were actually those who said that such a port was unnecessary and touted third-party USB options for audio input. They said that pros would use pro breakout boxes and expensive PCI input options for the purpose. I get the feeling that if Apple started shipping computers with no optical drive bay, the same crowd would say that Apple was being a visionary to let us choose our own external drive and provide such a visually uncluttered enclosure.
Yes and now the Audio Input is back on the computers. If there is sufficient reason to do the same with Internal and External Drive bays Apple will do so.
Quote:
On a whole, I believe this is a healthy debate, but I believe the question should be framed differently. Not why do we need a second drive bay, but why does Apple not include it. Considering their recent change to accommodate it in their current case design and considering the audience these new machines are intended for? That seems to me to be the real 64 bit... I mean, thousand dollar question.
The answer is there. People just don't want to accept it. Design tradeoffs dictate that thermal cooling maintains a precedence over Internal/External expandiblilty. I doubt anyway here is an Engineer and truly knows what Apple had to do to maintain cooling on two processor which dissipate 194 Watts. This case will take up beyond 3Ghz and perhaps to just under 4Ghz. The Thermal issues will remain constant for that duration most likely. Might as well over Engineer the cases now.
There is a case for having External Storage in a Pro environment. Dedicated Power Supply, Redundancy, Performance all reside with external devices. The main issues from the detractors are
1. Price- they don't want to spend more for external drives
2. Clutter- They want a clean desk(sign of a sick mind IMO)
I think this is atypical of the average Professional. I believe those who make their living using computers can easily justify external options.
I had a 42x CDRW in the second bay on my MDD machine, and it was very useful... However it is not the end of the world that I have to go external now. For me it is almost a bit easier, as I could use the burner and the extra drives I will buy with my iBook as well as the desktop.
Not ideal, but at least we are no longer moaning about speed, strangled altivec and FSBs... surely this has to be a step forward!
Some say, "But you don't NEED another internal optical drive, you can buy a FW drive, idiot".
These are the same people who say "But you don't NEED a mouse with more than one buttons, you can buy a a 3rd-party mouse, idiot" and when (or if) Apple comes out with a >1 button mouse, they'd say "Genius! Way to Go!"
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
The G4 was an embedded processor which consumed half of what the current 2Ghz 970 have done.
Someone want to translate this for me? What did G4 consume and what did the 2ghz 970 do?
Ok, having gone thorugh this entire thread...one thing stands out....
Next to all of the the detractors on the design of a new case do not use their machines in environments that a 'workstation' normally operates in. They are users who have [i]ONE[i/] computer or 'home computers' and call it/them a workstation.
There is a big difference. In fact, the workstation term even implies there is a server and support network. It is not your lone mac in your dorm room.
The balking at external devices is almost purely aesthetic and fussy. An external device actually provides more actual usability. Say, and external CD burner can be used by multiple workstations in a team
Oh...and a 'pro' will devise whatever schema is needed to meet their goals. If that includes the speed G5 and a whopping amount of storage they will take whatever route is needed to meet that requirement and ultimately the clients.... not endlessly bitch about it on a user forum.
Someone want to translate this for me? What did G4 consume and what did the 2ghz 970 do?
I must have been on crack, writing that. I mean the current G4s dissipate half the wattage of the current 2Ghz 970s. El Capitan was not sufficient for cooling the 970 based systems IMO.
I never use my second drive. Do any of you guys? And if so, what for?
In addition to 3 internal drives in my MDD G4 (80 GB ea), I have one external Firewire drive (80 GB). I keep all my projects and email on the external drive. I do this so I can work from home.
That said, I only use 2 of the 3 internal drives I have. One is my startup disk, one is used for backup and the third is empty.
Haha. You have obviously never seen a 924, 944, or a 968 have you?
We are talking 911 Turbo here, not re-badged VW's
The new G5's are PRO machines, PRO's will have their files served up for them from a file server, or SAN array. If they are about duplicating CD's they will have a dedicated device to do this. It's not about burning a CD for their friends.
Besides, Apple's decision to provide an expansion chassis for the G5 as postulated HERE will allow those with massive expansion needs to buy another Apple product.
The two hard drive limit in the new G5 is more of a concern to me. I already have a pretty fast Sony firewire CD burner, which sits conveniently on a shelf above my central monitor (I have three). If I were to get a G5 I'd probably remove the optical drive and put a four drive RAID array in the reclaimed space.
If I were to get a G5 I'd probably remove the optical drive and put a four drive RAID array in the reclaimed space.
Aphelion ...
I doubt you could do this, and even if you suceed you will void the warranty. If you want more HD, you can buy fire raid system. Due to the help of the last Oxford electronic the performance are pretty good for an external device.
I doubt you could do this, and even if you suceed you will void the warranty. If you want more HD, you can buy fire raid system. Due to the help of the last Oxford electronic the performance are pretty good for an external device.
There were those who thought a Cube was not "upgradable" but that did not stop me from swapping CPU cards with my DP 500 tower.
My post was more of a "mind experiment" for what I would do to make the G5 as fast as it could be without going outside the case. My point being that a fast SCSI RAID array would be worth more to me inside the G5 than an internal optical drive.
An external RAID array would no doubt be a more practical (and more expensive) solution here. Apple's expansion chassis, when it comes, would be a better solution for those that worry about voiding their warrantee.
to burn cd's faster... to do cd to cd copying... to be able to have *gasp* both a dvd and cd in the system at a time... to burn two cd's at a time... to listen to an audio cd while playing a game... or to just use the bay with all those odd ball accessories on the market, hot swappable drives, audio controllers, et cetera...
Looking at the side view of the case from Apple, that's a full-size std drive bay.
There exist laptop optical drive _pairs_ where the DVD and CD are both half-height - they'd both fit into that one full height bay. (Not to mention the dead space above the drive bay, or how many hard drives you could slam in the HD-bay portion of the computer there if you just ripped out the optical bay entirely & wedged SATA drives in. And a fan. Or two.)
How much actual modification of the front would be needed to use one of these dual-opticals in that drive bay?
Comments
Originally posted by jccbin
Again,
Why should the great majority of Mac users have to pay for the availability of a second drive if they never will use it?
Designing room for it costs money, and every purchaser must pay for the extra materials, design, and the wasted space.
If it's not in the machine, only those few who want it will miss it, and they can pay to have an external.
In other words, quit b*tching that your Porsche doesn't have a hatchback!
Haha. You have obviously never seen a 924, 944, or a 968 have you?
Originally posted by audiopollution
... and the Apple apologists all pop out of the woodwork.
audiopollution isn't the only thing you do is it?
Originally posted by iPeon
audiopollution isn't the only thing you do is it?
Meaning what?
Originally posted by audiopollution
The short-sightedness of this new case design extends beyond the exclusion of a second optical drive bay. The major flaw is the fact that it only has two HD bays.
I have four 200 gig drives in my current machine. When I move up to the G5, I will be forced to purchase 2 external drive cases in order to use my current drives.
Clutter. Cables. Boxes.
All seem to be quite counter to Apples 'new' clean design philosophy.
Ever thought of using filestorage over network?
Instead of moving your disks, let them stay and make a fileserver out of the machine. If its a new mac it should even have gigabit ethernet, thats fast enough for most people to work from. And then you could use the disk that comes wirh the G5 or put in 2x250 for extra short term storage
I dont se the problem not being able to have more than 500GB in the box, when there are so many alternatives if you need more space. If you could afford those drives, you could probably afford an x-serve RAID, and thats f--ing filestorage on steroids
This isn't a problem for many new users as over a Terabyte of HD space can be accomodated internally. Optical is another story however "Clutter" just doesn't seem to be a valid concern that warrants Apple expanding the tower(It's large enough as is).
Many of us are not Apple Apologists..we simply realize that you were never guaranteed that the multitude of your legacy products would be accommodated in the G5. There are varying levels of Professional Users. Some are "Matsuian Penny Pinchers"(wink) nothing wrong with that. Some realize that the Computer is the central nervous system for a network but they can abstract the Storage and gain more efficiency.
Neither side is right. There are people who need the extra space and I don't begrudge them.
Apple had to make some choices.
First choice : choose a desktop chip, instead the previous embedded chips. The 2 ghz chip eats 97 watts : good. For the first time there is a serious chip in a mac, and not an embedded chip. People here at AI, have complained that Mot sucks with his embedded chips, contrary to the PC world where the chip where designed for maximum performance and not for the embedded market. Now Apple offered you this chip, and some here will complain that it produce heat ? ridiculous.
Second choice : make something less noisy than the previous tower g4.
In order to make this deal, the new design his free of cable, have lot of air in it, and many fans. The result is more emptiness in the new mac, than the previous one. Consequence of this choice : in order to not make the case bigger than the previous one, there is less room for more HD, or a 2nd optical bay. On a side note, a bigger box means a more expansive one.
in resume : The lack of expandibility for the drives (optical and HD) in the new tower are the consequence of the use of a DESKTOP chip and the noise issue.
I do not wish to harshly or unfairly impugn the motives of anyone who has posted on this thread. I am, however, confused about some of the more vociferous defenses of Apple's single bay design for the new G5. Less than a year ago, Apple, themselves, thought that a second optical bay was important enough to reengineer the El Capitan to include the additional drive bay. Was Apple (gasp) in error then when it made the addition and therefore, acknowledgment of necessity for the addition? Or are they (gasp) in error now? By putting it in the design, Apple encouraged people to populate the space only to say less than a year later that to do so was a bad idea. I don't think so. Even though it is not directly the topic, the same is true of internal drive bays and PCI slots. To follow the logic of some on this board, Apple is now saying "You must have been nuts to actually have invested money in additional drives that we encouraged you to purchase and use!" Again, I do not think so.
Another problem with the theory of "That is a small niche need and therefore unnecessary," is that the whole G5 PM is a niche computer. Do the vast majority of people really need the power of a G5 computer? Does the average person really need digital audio i/o? Do they need 24-bit 96KHz sound? What kind of person uses 8 GBs worth of ram? I'll tell you what kind of person. A professional! By definition, that is a niche market. these same people can, (and in the current G4 case), do use multiple drives, both inside and out. If you cannot imagine why a person would need such expansion or believe there are more suitable options, then these machines were probably not designed with you in mind in the first place. You clearly did not see the need for the MDD revision and you did not populate the extra space. Those who did, now have a serious gripe with the company that one moment enables them to walk on water, and the next moment removes that ability and turns their back on them and leaves them to struggle against the current.
As a side note, this same type of discussion took place when Apple removed the audio in port from their line-up. There were actually those who said that such a port was unnecessary and touted third-party USB options for audio input. They said that pros would use pro breakout boxes and expensive PCI input options for the purpose. I get the feeling that if Apple started shipping computers with no optical drive bay, the same crowd would say that Apple was being a visionary to let us choose our own external drive and provide such a visually uncluttered enclosure.
On a whole, I believe this is a healthy debate, but I believe the question should be framed differently. Not why do we need a second drive bay, but why does Apple not include it. Considering their recent change to accommodate it in their current case design and considering the audience these new machines are intended for? That seems to me to be the real 64 bit... I mean, thousand dollar question.
The G5 is clearly a pricier platform. We still don't know how much the 970 costs, but the fact that the system controller is fabbed on the same technology, the cost of a 500MHz bus, and the need to amortize all the engineering costs - this is partly why the low end starts much higher now. However, it couldn't get too pricey, so Apple had to start cutting out features. The low end model is nerfed relative to the other two; internal drive capacity got cut because, while it's nice, it's used by a niche within a niche.
Also, there is the lately arrived rumor that Apple will be offering PCI and drive expansion chassis connected via PCI-X. If true, that would explain why the PowerMac itself offers merely enough - and it will make the G5 far more expandable than the G4 ever was.
Less than a year ago, Apple, themselves, thought that a second optical bay was important enough to reengineer the El Capitan to include the additional drive bay. Was Apple (gasp) in error then when it made the addition and therefore, acknowledgment of necessity for the addition? Or are they (gasp) in error now? By putting it in the design, Apple encouraged people to populate the space only to say less than a year later that to do so was a bad idea. I don't think so. Even though it is not directly the topic, the same is true of internal drive bays and PCI slots. To follow the logic of some on this board, Apple is now saying "You must have been nuts to actually have invested money in additional drives that we encouraged you to purchase and use!" Again, I do not think so.
As Powerdoc eloquently stated. The Design of the exterior had to follow the changes that the Interior demand. The G4 was an embedded processor which consumed half of what the current 2Ghz 970 have done. So here we have 4x the Thermal output yet some people want the same amount of Bays? Not going to happen. If Apple "encouraged" user to purchase drives that encouragement would apply only to the El Capitan cases. The G5 doesn't even support PATA Drives without an adapter.
Another problem with the theory of "That is a small niche need and therefore unnecessary," is that the whole G5 PM is a niche computer. Do the vast majority of people really need the power of a G5 computer? Does the average person really need digital audio i/o? Do they need 24-bit 96KHz sound? What kind of person uses 8 GBs worth of ram? I'll tell you what kind of person. A professional! By definition, that is a niche market. these same people can, (and in the current G4 case), do use multiple drives, both inside and out. If you cannot imagine why a person would need such expansion or believe there are more suitable options, then these machines were probably not designed with you in mind in the first place. You clearly did not see the need for the MDD revision and you did not populate the extra space. Those who did, now have a serious gripe with the company that one moment enables them to walk on water, and the next moment removes that ability and turns their back on them and leaves them to struggle against the current.
That's Business 101. Apple aims to profit by covering the Majority and not the Minority. Personally I want a small Cube with relatively no Internal Expansion. I want it cheap. Howerver I am the minority so I realize why this product has not been made. It's pointless to argue about the merits of what a Professional needs. There is one immutable fact of Business. Problems need solutions. Apple has not prevented anyone from accessing faster Optical drives or utilizing more HD space. It can be done. The arguements we are seeing is one of "clutter". Your last statement is blatantly false. Apple has not "removed" the "ability". That would be to remove all internal bays. They simply have modified that ability. Par for the course.
As a side note, this same type of discussion took place when Apple removed the audio in port from their line-up. There were actually those who said that such a port was unnecessary and touted third-party USB options for audio input. They said that pros would use pro breakout boxes and expensive PCI input options for the purpose. I get the feeling that if Apple started shipping computers with no optical drive bay, the same crowd would say that Apple was being a visionary to let us choose our own external drive and provide such a visually uncluttered enclosure.
Yes and now the Audio Input is back on the computers. If there is sufficient reason to do the same with Internal and External Drive bays Apple will do so.
On a whole, I believe this is a healthy debate, but I believe the question should be framed differently. Not why do we need a second drive bay, but why does Apple not include it. Considering their recent change to accommodate it in their current case design and considering the audience these new machines are intended for? That seems to me to be the real 64 bit... I mean, thousand dollar question.
The answer is there. People just don't want to accept it. Design tradeoffs dictate that thermal cooling maintains a precedence over Internal/External expandiblilty. I doubt anyway here is an Engineer and truly knows what Apple had to do to maintain cooling on two processor which dissipate 194 Watts. This case will take up beyond 3Ghz and perhaps to just under 4Ghz. The Thermal issues will remain constant for that duration most likely. Might as well over Engineer the cases now.
There is a case for having External Storage in a Pro environment. Dedicated Power Supply, Redundancy, Performance all reside with external devices. The main issues from the detractors are
1. Price- they don't want to spend more for external drives
2. Clutter- They want a clean desk(sign of a sick mind IMO)
I think this is atypical of the average Professional. I believe those who make their living using computers can easily justify external options.
I had a 42x CDRW in the second bay on my MDD machine, and it was very useful... However it is not the end of the world that I have to go external now. For me it is almost a bit easier, as I could use the burner and the extra drives I will buy with my iBook as well as the desktop.
Not ideal, but at least we are no longer moaning about speed, strangled altivec and FSBs... surely this has to be a step forward!
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Some say, "But you don't NEED another internal optical drive, you can buy a FW drive, idiot".
These are the same people who say "But you don't NEED a mouse with more than one buttons, you can buy a a 3rd-party mouse, idiot" and when (or if) Apple comes out with a >1 button mouse, they'd say "Genius! Way to Go!"
Originally posted by hmurchison
The G4 was an embedded processor which consumed half of what the current 2Ghz 970 have done.
Someone want to translate this for me? What did G4 consume and what did the 2ghz 970 do?
Next to all of the the detractors on the design of a new case do not use their machines in environments that a 'workstation' normally operates in. They are users who have [i]ONE[i/] computer or 'home computers' and call it/them a workstation.
There is a big difference. In fact, the workstation term even implies there is a server and support network. It is not your lone mac in your dorm room.
The balking at external devices is almost purely aesthetic and fussy. An external device actually provides more actual usability. Say, and external CD burner can be used by multiple workstations in a team
Oh...and a 'pro' will devise whatever schema is needed to meet their goals. If that includes the speed G5 and a whopping amount of storage they will take whatever route is needed to meet that requirement and ultimately the clients.... not endlessly bitch about it on a user forum.
Z
Someone want to translate this for me? What did G4 consume and what did the 2ghz 970 do?
Originally posted by iSegway
I never use my second drive. Do any of you guys? And if so, what for?
In addition to 3 internal drives in my MDD G4 (80 GB ea), I have one external Firewire drive (80 GB). I keep all my projects and email on the external drive. I do this so I can work from home.
That said, I only use 2 of the 3 internal drives I have. One is my startup disk, one is used for backup and the third is empty.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Haha. You have obviously never seen a 924, 944, or a 968 have you?
We are talking 911 Turbo here, not re-badged VW's
The new G5's are PRO machines, PRO's will have their files served up for them from a file server, or SAN array. If they are about duplicating CD's they will have a dedicated device to do this. It's not about burning a CD for their friends.
Besides, Apple's decision to provide an expansion chassis for the G5 as postulated HERE will allow those with massive expansion needs to buy another Apple product.
The two hard drive limit in the new G5 is more of a concern to me. I already have a pretty fast Sony firewire CD burner, which sits conveniently on a shelf above my central monitor (I have three). If I were to get a G5 I'd probably remove the optical drive and put a four drive RAID array in the reclaimed space.
Aphelion ...
Originally posted by Aphelion
If I were to get a G5 I'd probably remove the optical drive and put a four drive RAID array in the reclaimed space.
Aphelion ...
I doubt you could do this, and even if you suceed you will void the warranty. If you want more HD, you can buy fire raid system. Due to the help of the last Oxford electronic the performance are pretty good for an external device.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I doubt you could do this, and even if you suceed you will void the warranty. If you want more HD, you can buy fire raid system. Due to the help of the last Oxford electronic the performance are pretty good for an external device.
There were those who thought a Cube was not "upgradable" but that did not stop me from swapping CPU cards with my DP 500 tower.
My post was more of a "mind experiment" for what I would do to make the G5 as fast as it could be without going outside the case. My point being that a fast SCSI RAID array would be worth more to me inside the G5 than an internal optical drive.
An external RAID array would no doubt be a more practical (and more expensive) solution here. Apple's expansion chassis, when it comes, would be a better solution for those that worry about voiding their warrantee.
Aphelion ...
to burn cd's faster... to do cd to cd copying... to be able to have *gasp* both a dvd and cd in the system at a time... to burn two cd's at a time... to listen to an audio cd while playing a game... or to just use the bay with all those odd ball accessories on the market, hot swappable drives, audio controllers, et cetera...
There exist laptop optical drive _pairs_ where the DVD and CD are both half-height - they'd both fit into that one full height bay. (Not to mention the dead space above the drive bay, or how many hard drives you could slam in the HD-bay portion of the computer there if you just ripped out the optical bay entirely & wedged SATA drives in. And a fan. Or two.)
How much actual modification of the front would be needed to use one of these dual-opticals in that drive bay?