Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
David
Goto HP or Dell now, GO config a workstation. Look what happens when you bump up the Woodcrest chips
2ghz -> 2.33 ghz = $143x2 price bump
233-> 266ghz = $429x2 price bump.
You get screwed worse in CTO senerio if you offer everything and line their pockets.
I personally don't care for lack of midend Graphics cards much. The less configs the better.
It totally works againist you when you use Pro apps, which won't support certain cards. Low CTO cards make them support more fully.
Go look at avid boards, and see the "Blood hell, I just spend 2k on my machine+ software license, and my card won't work???"
It's many times more easier when you know your configs works, even if it's less/more powerful then what you want exactly.
It's many times more easier when you know your configs works, even if it's less/more powerful then what you want exactly.
That's exactly how Apple works: they build a small group of machines that they know have no driver conflicts, incompatibilities, major ugly bottlenecks, etc. It beats building a computer in that it saves a lot of risk and worry.
Actually, I guess I did, because my train of thought goes something like "Intel wouldn't dare make a lemon-prone chip available to the server market, one who puts a premium on reliability, without rigorous quality assurance".
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
BTO WiFi and Bluetooth still annoy me. I wish theses were offered automatically as they are in every other Mac now being built.
However, I have noticed that when I was in school..we had G5 Dual 2.0s and they locked OUT the bluetooth and airport capabilities. I had to get special permission to insert my USB bluetooth device to add bluetooth to my workstation to use my wireless bluetooth waccom tablet. They really didn't like that. I can only assume that certain PowerMac customers in the past requested NO AIRPORT or NO BLUETOOTH capabilities..
I think it's more that the type of wireless being used in the Mac Pro is, as of yet, not even shipping, therefore they wouldn't want to bog down the shipments of non-wireless Mac Pros by making everybody wait for Airport Express cards to be manufactured. And Bluetooth is even more obscure an option than WiFi, a lot of people will never use it thus it's better in this short-supply scenario to let customers choose what they want.
However, I have noticed that when I was in school..we had G5 Dual 2.0s and they locked OUT the bluetooth and airport capabilities. I had to get special permission to insert my USB bluetooth device to add bluetooth to my workstation to use my wireless bluetooth waccom tablet. They really didn't like that. I can only assume that certain PowerMac customers in the past requested NO AIRPORT or NO BLUETOOTH capabilities
User accounts in OS X need an admin password to change network status (at least for Airport, I don't have bluetooth). If the machine at the school ran a non-admin account, you couldn't adjust network settings like that. Same with my iBook. that's what's keeping me on a admin-account regularly, since every time I put it to sleep and wake it up, I have to reconnect to the network wirelessly.
I want to buy a new tower as this one is bogging down and I want to get rid of it now and make something off of it. Do you people think I will see a sizable speed increase if I go with an INtel 2.66 with a similar config? (I'd go with the ATI 512 video card)
I use (often all open at once)
the adobe CS2 suite (I know I'll have to wait to see CS3)
Quark
Macromedia suit
itunes
Adium
I also would like to play games, dual boot into windows etc.
thoughts? my credit card is ready and my current tower is for sale $2k CND(is that a good price?)
Yes I think you'll see a sizable difference. I hopped on a dual 2.6Ghz at Compusa and my gawd that think is fast and I expect it to get faster as applications become tweaked for the features of the new Core Architecture chips.
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
I have to say this is just complaining to see your self complain.
1.) 0.33GHz? What is the actual speed difference between the 2.66 GHz machine, and the 2.0GHz version. Barely anything, and you think this matters? What a joke.
2.) people wanted a mid level Mac that was upgradable at an affordable price, and that is what they got. Most people said "I don't need all those graphics options", I want a mid level Mac, and I'll bet your one of them.
3.) Airport and bluetooth. BTO to keep costs down as much as possible for a bare bones esystem.
4.) Front row, is built into Leopard. Everybody else has to wait to so quit your bitching.
5.) You have nothing here. Why do you want a Mac Pro? are you a professional. Do you need the upgradability, or do you need an iMac? + You seem like an iMac kind of guy. You should chose what suits you best, and I'd say that would probably be a PC.
2. Again with the damn "graphics card" complaints. No matter what card they put in, the graphics-cardnuts would still complain. They are never satisfied.
3. WHo needs Airport on a desktop that sits right next to the router?
4. A remote on a machine that sits on the floor under the desk? Huh?
Yes I think you'll see a sizable difference. I hopped on a dual 2.6Ghz at Compusa and my gawd that think is fast and I expect it to get faster as applications become tweaked for the features of the new Core Architecture chips.
I have to say this is just complaining to see your self complain.
1.) 0.33GHz? What is the actual speed difference between the 2.66 GHz machine, and the 2.0GHz version. Barely anything, and you think this matters? What a joke.
2.) people wanted a mid level Mac that was upgradable at an affordable price, and that is what they got. Most people said "I don't need all those graphics options", I want a mid level Mac, and I'll bet your one of them.
3.) Airport and bluetooth. BTO to keep costs down as much as possible for a bare bones esystem.
4.) Front row, is built into Leopard. Everybody else has to wait to so quit your bitching.
5.) You have nothing here. Why do you want a Mac Pro? are you a professional. Do you need the upgradability, or do you need an iMac? + You seem like an iMac kind of guy. You should chose what suits you best, and I'd say that would probably be a PC.
Oh Man, give me some credit - I did say that I thought it was a great machine. Everything else centered around there not actually being that many options (despite what Apple says), and them not including what is included on ALL other macs, including the $599 mini.
As for the final statement, well, that is a very low blow...
Actually the 3.0GHz Mac Pro is 33% faster than the 2.66.
But what is the difference between the 2.0, and 2.66? I'll bet it's much less, and I think your stating an average, and not a constant real world percentage.
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
You are right on these points but the mac pro introduce :
- two slots DVD drive bay
- 4 slots HD bays
- many connectors
- more space for the big huge video cards (you don't lose a PCI port here)
- less watt consumption than my mighty quad G5 (alias the power eater)
- more video card options and especially the radeon X1900 XT
edit : just discovered that Junkyard made the same comments.
I think these are all valid points, none of which bothered me particularly.
The reason we only have 3 graphics card options is because the product is new and nothing exists. More than likely, all that needs to happen is a 3rd party driver can be made to run PC video cards (cheap as hell) on Mac OS X.
You can theoretically take a PC x1900XT and pop it in your mac pro and it'll 'just work'. That means you can finally use the same options that are in the PC world, but of course you need drivers for them.
This is where Macvidia comes in: an open source, 3rd party driver for Nvidia cards for OS X on x86.
No flashing, no BS. You just need a driver.
BT, Airport, and front row and most likely good points but they don't affect me.
I'm going to replace my 3 year old dual 2 GHz G5 with a shiny new 3 GHz Mac Pro. (I'm a programmer and can rationalize the purchase.) While most Pro users won't want the wireless features, I can still add it via BTO so I don't know why people are complaining. Since this Mac would be used at home I wish it did have Front Row support, but I can wait for the new screens. Only downer there is that AppleCare won't cover the display unless they're purchased at the same time.
Comments
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
David
Goto HP or Dell now, GO config a workstation. Look what happens when you bump up the Woodcrest chips
2ghz -> 2.33 ghz = $143x2 price bump
233-> 266ghz = $429x2 price bump.
You get screwed worse in CTO senerio if you offer everything and line their pockets.
I personally don't care for lack of midend Graphics cards much. The less configs the better.
It totally works againist you when you use Pro apps, which won't support certain cards. Low CTO cards make them support more fully.
Go look at avid boards, and see the "Blood hell, I just spend 2k on my machine+ software license, and my card won't work???"
It's many times more easier when you know your configs works, even if it's less/more powerful then what you want exactly.
It's many times more easier when you know your configs works, even if it's less/more powerful then what you want exactly.
That's exactly how Apple works: they build a small group of machines that they know have no driver conflicts, incompatibilities, major ugly bottlenecks, etc. It beats building a computer in that it saves a lot of risk and worry.
you misspelled Intel...
Actually, I guess I did, because my train of thought goes something like "Intel wouldn't dare make a lemon-prone chip available to the server market, one who puts a premium on reliability, without rigorous quality assurance".
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
BTO WiFi and Bluetooth still annoy me. I wish theses were offered automatically as they are in every other Mac now being built.
However, I have noticed that when I was in school..we had G5 Dual 2.0s and they locked OUT the bluetooth and airport capabilities. I had to get special permission to insert my USB bluetooth device to add bluetooth to my workstation to use my wireless bluetooth waccom tablet. They really didn't like that. I can only assume that certain PowerMac customers in the past requested NO AIRPORT or NO BLUETOOTH capabilities..
Christopher
However, I have noticed that when I was in school..we had G5 Dual 2.0s and they locked OUT the bluetooth and airport capabilities. I had to get special permission to insert my USB bluetooth device to add bluetooth to my workstation to use my wireless bluetooth waccom tablet. They really didn't like that. I can only assume that certain PowerMac customers in the past requested NO AIRPORT or NO BLUETOOTH capabilities
User accounts in OS X need an admin password to change network status (at least for Airport, I don't have bluetooth). If the machine at the school ran a non-admin account, you couldn't adjust network settings like that. Same with my iBook. that's what's keeping me on a admin-account regularly, since every time I put it to sleep and wake it up, I have to reconnect to the network wirelessly.
I have a dual 2.0 G5 tower
2 gigs of ram
160 gig hd
airport + blue tooth (i only need blue tooth)
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 mg video card.
I want to buy a new tower as this one is bogging down and I want to get rid of it now and make something off of it. Do you people think I will see a sizable speed increase if I go with an INtel 2.66 with a similar config? (I'd go with the ATI 512 video card)
I use (often all open at once)
the adobe CS2 suite (I know I'll have to wait to see CS3)
Quark
Macromedia suit
itunes
Adium
I also would like to play games, dual boot into windows etc.
thoughts? my credit card is ready and my current tower is for sale $2k CND(is that a good price?)
flick.
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
I have to say this is just complaining to see your self complain.
1.) 0.33GHz? What is the actual speed difference between the 2.66 GHz machine, and the 2.0GHz version. Barely anything, and you think this matters? What a joke.
2.) people wanted a mid level Mac that was upgradable at an affordable price, and that is what they got. Most people said "I don't need all those graphics options", I want a mid level Mac, and I'll bet your one of them.
3.) Airport and bluetooth. BTO to keep costs down as much as possible for a bare bones esystem.
4.) Front row, is built into Leopard. Everybody else has to wait to so quit your bitching.
5.) You have nothing here. Why do you want a Mac Pro? are you a professional. Do you need the upgradability, or do you need an iMac? + You seem like an iMac kind of guy. You should chose what suits you best, and I'd say that would probably be a PC.
2. Again with the damn "graphics card" complaints. No matter what card they put in, the graphics-cardnuts would still complain. They are never satisfied.
3. WHo needs Airport on a desktop that sits right next to the router?
4. A remote on a machine that sits on the floor under the desk? Huh?
Yes I think you'll see a sizable difference. I hopped on a dual 2.6Ghz at Compusa and my gawd that think is fast and I expect it to get faster as applications become tweaked for the features of the new Core Architecture chips.
I wonder how crappy CS2 does run though...
anyone know this?
flick.
I have to say this is just complaining to see your self complain.
1.) 0.33GHz? What is the actual speed difference between the 2.66 GHz machine, and the 2.0GHz version. Barely anything, and you think this matters? What a joke.
2.) people wanted a mid level Mac that was upgradable at an affordable price, and that is what they got. Most people said "I don't need all those graphics options", I want a mid level Mac, and I'll bet your one of them.
3.) Airport and bluetooth. BTO to keep costs down as much as possible for a bare bones esystem.
4.) Front row, is built into Leopard. Everybody else has to wait to so quit your bitching.
5.) You have nothing here. Why do you want a Mac Pro? are you a professional. Do you need the upgradability, or do you need an iMac? + You seem like an iMac kind of guy. You should chose what suits you best, and I'd say that would probably be a PC.
Oh Man, give me some credit - I did say that I thought it was a great machine. Everything else centered around there not actually being that many options (despite what Apple says), and them not including what is included on ALL other macs, including the $599 mini.
As for the final statement, well, that is a very low blow...
Actually the 3.0GHz Mac Pro is 33% faster than the 2.66.
But what is the difference between the 2.0, and 2.66? I'll bet it's much less, and I think your stating an average, and not a constant real world percentage.
Dual 2.66 w/ 2 gigs of ram and the ati 9800xt? 512 mg video card enroute.
No air port! (glad its an option)
blue tooth.
flick.
Now, I personally hate flamers, so I have to say: The Mac Pro, if it fits your requirements, is an excellent machine, and good value to boot. However, I'm surprised with a few things, which are enough to make me not get it as the future-proof home machine which I had hoped for.
1. No 2.33Ghz option - we all know that Intel makes them, and it would be a good value point.
2. Graphics no better than the iMac, unless you pay a very large amount for a top of the line option.
3. Airport and Bluetooth are BTO - no biggie, but a bit poor since every other much cheaper mac has it standard.
4. No Front Row and remote - yet again, a feature all other macs have, and I'd expect it to be available on the flagship, even if it isn't exactly for the core market.
5. Though the standard config is good, all options seem to be pretty steep.
So there I go: vent over. It's left me wishing either that I could build my own conroe box and get OSX for it, or I'm going to have to wait and hope that the iMac bump comes soon and is significant.
David
You are right on these points but the mac pro introduce :
- two slots DVD drive bay
- 4 slots HD bays
- many connectors
- more space for the big huge video cards (you don't lose a PCI port here)
- less watt consumption than my mighty quad G5 (alias the power eater)
- more video card options and especially the radeon X1900 XT
edit : just discovered that Junkyard made the same comments.
The reason we only have 3 graphics card options is because the product is new and nothing exists. More than likely, all that needs to happen is a 3rd party driver can be made to run PC video cards (cheap as hell) on Mac OS X.
You can theoretically take a PC x1900XT and pop it in your mac pro and it'll 'just work'. That means you can finally use the same options that are in the PC world, but of course you need drivers for them.
This is where Macvidia comes in: an open source, 3rd party driver for Nvidia cards for OS X on x86.
No flashing, no BS. You just need a driver.
BT, Airport, and front row and most likely good points but they don't affect me.
Well I got tired of waiting for opinions..
Dual 2.66 w/ 2 gigs of ram and the ati 9800xt? 512 mg video card enroute.
No air port! (glad its an option)
blue tooth.
flick.
Have fun either waiting 3-5 weeks or getting shipped tomorrow, depending on what's actually going on with those X1900XT graphics cards...
Have fun either waiting 3-5 weeks or getting shipped tomorrow, depending on what's actually going on with those X1900XT graphics cards...
They're poiritizing "Bulk" shippments.
CTO 2.0 and 3.ghz + normal package = sent to every reseller.
Everything else is delayed quite a bit. Lowering or raising the 250HDD for instance = 2-3 week backlog.
I got my 2.0ghz already.