It needs to start for the Mac Mini 8) -- They're still on Core Duo (Yonah) 1st gen Intel Core. Time for update...!!!11!!
The Mini is, fortunately, a drop in upgrade to Core 2 (Merom) like all the other Macs are using now besides the Xeon powered Mac Pro and Xserve. I'm kind of leaning towards one myself actually as I've seen it be done.
Ah the Intel age. I remember when a couple of dozen extra Megahertz and a bigger hard drive were considered a passable "rev" in Macs. Nowadays we just wait 6 months and hop on for another level of WARPSPEED!
I know there are some who think it makes your top of the range Mac less special now that the pace is faster. But come on, who wants to go back to that stagnation for real? Once upon a time Apple cranked out the same model Mac Plus for what was it, SIX years? (my mistake: 4 years 10 months!)
If the pricing doesn't change for the current models, I hope two 1GB FB-DIMMs will become standard, as well as the hardware RAID capability being enabled on the motherboard. Perhaps the ATI 1950 will become an option as well?
[QUOTE=fuyutsuki;1013460]The Mini is, fortunately, a drop in upgrade to Core 2 (Merom) like all the other Macs are using now besides the Xeon powered Mac Pro and Xserve./QUOTE]
I don't know if you mistated it or simply missed it, but Mac Pro's CPUs can be replaced / upgraded. This much was was pretty much proven at Anandtech. It's a little tough to get in there, but still probably easier than can be said for the iMac. I don't remember anyone saying for sure either way on the Xserve. The chips in the notebook Macs can't be upgraded, except maybe for changing out the entire board.
If the pricing doesn't change for the current models, I hope two 1GB FB-DIMMs will become standard, as well as the hardware RAID capability being enabled on the motherboard. Perhaps the ATI 1950 will become an option as well?
I don't see any information about the Mac Pro's chipset having an unused RAID capability that can just be turned on.
I think the hope is that an 8800 card would be added to the offerings.
If the pricing doesn't change for the current models, I hope two 1GB FB-DIMMs will become standard, as well as the hardware RAID capability being enabled on the motherboard. Perhaps the ATI 1950 will become an option as well?
I would like to see the Mac Pro support both SAS and SATA hard drives like the Xserve.
The ATI 1950 will suit me fine allowing the attached display(s) to rotate between landscape + portrait orientations for when I'm photographing [tethered].
SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is very expensive these days, SATA-II (300GB/s versus 320GB/s for U320 SCSI) is just pricing SAS/SCSI right out of the market. I held on to SCSI for a LONG time, but with the ever diminishing marketshare WRT SATA drives, SAS/SCSI drives are just getting more expensive. Add to this that you can have a 4-drive RAID 0/5 SATA, it just doesn't make much economic sense to go SAS, for a marginal increase in speed.
Just price 15K SAS drives, or 10K SAS drives versus 10K SATA (Raptors), or 7.2K SAS versus 7.2K SATA-II, I did this a few weeks ago, knowing that SAS/SCSI would be more expensive, but WOW the price difference has just gone through the roof. I ended up with two 10K 150GB Raptors as a RAID 0 on my Quad G5, talk about "teh snappy!"
o Two 2.66 GHz quad core [add $1999] (i.e. just low enough to make it not worth while to buy the 2.0GHz and swap processors)
There needs to be a little bit of a price drop from the old chips. This isn't ibm. This was posted the other day. I don't know how reliable hkepc is. BUT I have some buddies that work at intel (I used to work there) that have been rumbling about these price drops. I feel there is a good chance these will affect the xeons as well.
Higher speeds up to 15,000 RPM. As SATA is the serial version of IDE, SAS is the serial version of SCSI.
Yup...in addition to the standard features of SCSI ...SAS brings some nice things to the table.
Dual Ports- connect two seperate controllers to one drive for redundancy
Port Multiplication- You can fan out drives on a single controller. Thus a 8 port controller could easily support 32 or more drives. Max is 16,384 drives.
SAS is a pretty damn cool technology. LSI Logic makes a SAS switch that can replace fibre connections in some scenarios.
I'd love to see Apple move to SFF SAS drives. Thus you could put your OS on a 10k boot SAS drive and then use SATA for the larger storage needs.
Port Multiplication-[/B] You can fan out drives on a single controller. Thus a 8 port controller could easily support 32 or more drives. Max is 16,384 drives.
What is the limit with SATA? I've seen five-way port multipliers for them. For me, that would be enough, that would allow me to have ten external drives without buying a PCIe card and without going to Firewire.
Comments
It needs to start for the Mac Mini 8) -- They're still on Core Duo (Yonah) 1st gen Intel Core. Time for update...!!!11!!
The Mini is, fortunately, a drop in upgrade to Core 2 (Merom) like all the other Macs are using now besides the Xeon powered Mac Pro and Xserve. I'm kind of leaning towards one myself actually as I've seen it be done.
Ah the Intel age. I remember when a couple of dozen extra Megahertz and a bigger hard drive were considered a passable "rev" in Macs. Nowadays we just wait 6 months and hop on for another level of WARPSPEED!
I know there are some who think it makes your top of the range Mac less special now that the pace is faster. But come on, who wants to go back to that stagnation for real? Once upon a time Apple cranked out the same model Mac Plus for what was it, SIX years? (my mistake: 4 years 10 months!)
Bring it on Intel, we can keep up with you.
I don't know if you mistated it or simply missed it, but Mac Pro's CPUs can be replaced / upgraded. This much was was pretty much proven at Anandtech. It's a little tough to get in there, but still probably easier than can be said for the iMac. I don't remember anyone saying for sure either way on the Xserve. The chips in the notebook Macs can't be upgraded, except maybe for changing out the entire board.
If the pricing doesn't change for the current models, I hope two 1GB FB-DIMMs will become standard, as well as the hardware RAID capability being enabled on the motherboard. Perhaps the ATI 1950 will become an option as well?
I don't see any information about the Mac Pro's chipset having an unused RAID capability that can just be turned on.
I think the hope is that an 8800 card would be added to the offerings.
The Mini is, fortunately, a drop in upgrade to Core 2 (Merom) like all the other Macs are using now besides the Xeon powered Mac Pro and Xserve.
I don't know if you mistated it or simply missed it, but Mac Pro's CPUs can be replaced / upgraded.
That's not his point. You can't drop a Merom into a Mac Pro and even if you could, it would hardly be an "upgrade."
If the pricing doesn't change for the current models, I hope two 1GB FB-DIMMs will become standard, as well as the hardware RAID capability being enabled on the motherboard. Perhaps the ATI 1950 will become an option as well?
I would like to see the Mac Pro support both SAS and SATA hard drives like the Xserve.
Elektro80's post mentions the onboard RAID possibility at:
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-12748.html.
Posts #6 and #8 mention it as well at http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=231822
The ATI 1950 will suit me fine allowing the attached display(s) to rotate between landscape + portrait orientations for when I'm photographing [tethered].
I don't see any information about the Mac Pro's chipset having an unused RAID capability that can just be turned on.
I think the hope is that an 8800 card would be added to the offerings.
I'm hoping more to see the Quadro FX 560 and 1500. The Mac Pro needs entry and mid level professional options.
What benefits does SAS offer, and aren't they more costly?
Haggar,
What benefits does SAS offer, and aren't they more costly?
Higher speeds up to 15,000 RPM. As SATA is the serial version of IDE, SAS is the serial version of SCSI.
SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is very expensive these days, SATA-II (300GB/s versus 320GB/s for U320 SCSI) is just pricing SAS/SCSI right out of the market. I held on to SCSI for a LONG time, but with the ever diminishing marketshare WRT SATA drives, SAS/SCSI drives are just getting more expensive. Add to this that you can have a 4-drive RAID 0/5 SATA, it just doesn't make much economic sense to go SAS, for a marginal increase in speed.
Just price 15K SAS drives, or 10K SAS drives versus 10K SATA (Raptors), or 7.2K SAS versus 7.2K SATA-II, I did this a few weeks ago, knowing that SAS/SCSI would be more expensive, but WOW the price difference has just gone through the roof. I ended up with two 10K 150GB Raptors as a RAID 0 on my Quad G5, talk about "teh snappy!"
That's not his point. You can't drop a Merom into a Mac Pro and even if you could, it would hardly be an "upgrade."
OK, my mistake.
o Two 2.0 GHz dual core [subtract $299]
o Two 2.66 GHz dual core
o Two 2.0 GHz quad core
o Two 3.0 GHz dual core [add $799]
o Two 2.33 GHz quad core [add $799]
o Two 2.66 GHz quad core [add $1999] (i.e. just low enough to make it not worth while to buy the 2.0GHz and swap processors)
There needs to be a little bit of a price drop from the old chips. This isn't ibm. This was posted the other day. I don't know how reliable hkepc is. BUT I have some buddies that work at intel (I used to work there) that have been rumbling about these price drops. I feel there is a good chance these will affect the xeons as well.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?...me=0&endtime=0
Higher speeds up to 15,000 RPM. As SATA is the serial version of IDE, SAS is the serial version of SCSI.
Don't SCSI hard drives have a reputation for much higher reliability and longer MTBF times than ATA drives?
Don't SCSI hard drives have a reputation for much higher reliability and longer MTBF times than ATA drives?
The only rep I am aware that they have is they are way more expensive.
The only rep I am aware that they have is they are way more expensive.
They are more reliable but it's not worth it for the individual.
Don't SCSI hard drives have a reputation for much higher reliability and longer MTBF times than ATA drives?
Yes the MTBF of a SCSI drive is rated at 24x7
the MTBF of a SATA drive is rated at 8x5
Large difference.
Higher speeds up to 15,000 RPM. As SATA is the serial version of IDE, SAS is the serial version of SCSI.
Yup...in addition to the standard features of SCSI ...SAS brings some nice things to the table.
Dual Ports- connect two seperate controllers to one drive for redundancy
Port Multiplication- You can fan out drives on a single controller. Thus a 8 port controller could easily support 32 or more drives. Max is 16,384 drives.
SAS is a pretty damn cool technology. LSI Logic makes a SAS switch that can replace fibre connections in some scenarios.
I'd love to see Apple move to SFF SAS drives. Thus you could put your OS on a 10k boot SAS drive and then use SATA for the larger storage needs.
Nice sunilraman,
Can't wait to get one.
I hope After Effects 8 will come right after CS3.
Oh my.
I couldn't agree more!!! AE8 running on one of those things would be incredible!
(P.S. Are there any benchmarks of AE7 running on the current Macbook Pro?)
Port Multiplication-[/B] You can fan out drives on a single controller. Thus a 8 port controller could easily support 32 or more drives. Max is 16,384 drives.
What is the limit with SATA? I've seen five-way port multipliers for them. For me, that would be enough, that would allow me to have ten external drives without buying a PCIe card and without going to Firewire.