So here goes... I just ordered an Asus P5W Deluxe motherboard for my hackintosh.... Gonna team that up with a e6700. I have been frequenting the insanelymac.com forums today. You wouldn't believe how many of those guys have gone that route because apple won't. For all of those nay sayers that a prosumer mac wouldn't sell. There are hundreds of these guys who went through the pain and suffering of building their own because apple doesn't offer such a computer. People say that this prosumer mac would cannibalize iMac sales... apple isn't even selling computers to these guys. I'm jumping on board with them. I'm tired of waiting on apple to make a reasonable computer for my needs.
So what are you going to do when Leopard comes out? Use Vista?
You really think Apple is going to allow that OS to run on a PC?
If it were likely that the Mac OS was going to on a PC after leopard comes out it would be much bigger news. Apple has already stated that Leopard wouldn't run on a regular X86 PC.
So what are you going to do when Leopard comes out? Use Vista?
You really think Apple is going to allow that OS to run on a PC?
If it were likely that the Mac OS was going to on a PC after leopard comes out it would be much bigger news. Apple has already stated that Leopard wouldn't run on a regular X86 PC.
It might work in the sort of crippled way it does on other PC's that it's been hacked into.
It's really more of a hobbyists machine than a practical one.
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
And I would imagine that Apple will quietly switch to it.
It might work in the sort of crippled way it does on other PC's that it's been hacked into.
It's really more of a hobbyists machine than a practical one.
Personally I think there guy's are wasting money b/c it's not going to work at all. Apple is very committed to make sure it wont. They know everything these guy's are doing so obviously that way isn't going to work.
Isn't the OS version they are using now just a developers hack that was done by Apple on purpose to run on x86?
Personally I think there guy's are wasting money b/c it's not going to work at all. Apple is very committed to make sure it wont. They know everything these guy's are doing so obviously that way isn't going to work.
Isn't the OS version they are using now just a developers hack that was done by Apple on purpose to run on x86?
Here's the OSx86 Project website. It seems to be up to 10.4.8. I haven't been keeping track of it, so I don't know how well it runs, but I do know that it doesn't run much very well. There is a problem with drivers.
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
It seems that the processors are the Xeon X5365. Not sure if and how this fits what you say.
Here's the OSx86 Project website. It seems to be up to 10.4.8. I haven't been keeping track of it, so I don't know how well it runs, but I do know that it doesn't run much very well. There is a problem with drivers.
I have a mixed bag of success with these OS X builds. I've used the ones from JaS between 10.4.5 through 10.4.8 on a Dell Optiplex (Pentium 4 3.2GHz w/ SSE2 and SSE3). Sometimes everything works smoothly and sometimes it doesn't. There was plenty of BIOS and install option tinking to get it right, like not installing SSE3 and turnign off hyperthreading. Apps like iTunes often crashed and before build 10.4.8 I was unable to get the on-board NIC and the PCI NIC to work, though every other driver worked natively.
I mainly used it to showcase some of OS X's abilities to some techy, but non-Mac using friends as I had no network connection for it until recently. One of the things I liked was timing how long it took to start in Windows mode. About a minute, whch is pretty damn fast for a WIndows machine. Then timing it in OS X mode. This hacked version of OS X running on a Dell encrusted Pentium with 512MB RAM would start in 21 seconds. That is damn fast for any Mac. Not sure how they did that.
Overall, It's not bad to tinker with if you have an old x86 machine lying around. I defintiely learned quite a few things about the OS X environment.
As you say-"hundreds". Hundreds do not make a market. Hundreds of thousands begin to.
While I would like to see one myself, Apple must think there is a good reason for not having one.
Compared to most folks, you guys aren't reasonable. You're driven. There isn't anything wrong with that, but most people don't care enough.
For everyone who's willing to hack, there's a hundred who say forget it and just go on using windows. You guys say there's not a market, but honestly, how big do you think the markets Apple competes in are? Premium thin and light, premium all in one, content creation workstation not what I'd call high volume markets.
YES! I expect a high end Mac Pro HD with BTO Blu-Ray and higher end graphics cards at NAB.
I expect this as well. Apple is going to have to get Blu-Ray into its products soon, and the Pro models would be the obvious first machines to embrace the new tech. The Mac Pro offers the added benefit of more internal space if the drives require more physical space.
I'm hoping that new GPU's are introduced for the Mac Pro at NAB. We know there are better cards out there so it's just a matter of time before they are included in the BTO list.
With the price drop on the current monitors, I'm hoping we'll see some LCD lit displays with the iSight built in. It would be amazing to see Apple impliment the patent they have of the cameras built right into the screen allowing eye contact on video chats.
I'm going to wait until NAB until I buy, hoping for updates, but this 8-Core machine will stand proudly on my desk regardless.
It's been a perfect opportunity for years, or so we like to think, but Apple doesn't agree.
When the G5 tower first came out, some here might remember, I proposed an idea for a $999 model, that even my friends in Apple engineering thought was a good one, but told me would never happen.
So far, they've been right.
So why is Apple so reluctant to do a Mac Headless Desktop?
- it seems loads of people would like one - for all the obvious reasons
- is it just that SteveJ doesn't want to do it, for some unfathomable aesthetic reason?
- it seems like an easy way for Apple to pick up some sales, which must be a good thing?
So why is Apple so reluctant to do a Mac Headless Desktop?
- it seems loads of people would like one - for all the obvious reasons
- is it just that SteveJ doesn't want to do it, for some unfathomable aesthetic reason?
- it seems like an easy way for Apple to pick up some sales, which must be a good thing?
Apple isn't all about Steve Jobs. All decisions are not solely his. They tried the headless Mac once and it failed miserably. Apple released the mini to attend to the lower half of that spectrum which was the greater half, and the mini is a success. Apple has beefed the iMac to attend to another part of the scope, and the iMac is a success. What is left is a very small percentage of users that can buy a low end Mac Pro if they need expandability. After that is a seriously slim amount of users. Apple does research, and obviously there is not a large enough amount of users that does not fall into a "what's left" category for them to reintroduce the cube or a similar set up.
Don't worry though. As the Mac user base grows the chances of another Mac grows as well. Once they feel the have a strong enough user base to build a midrange machine without taking too many sales away from competing products I'm sure they will come out with something else. Until then, that slim minority will have to make do with what is available.
I assume this is referring to the cube then, something I didn't pick up on before.
I have some problems with that. First is that it was so long ago, the market has changed since then, with people giving Macs a look because of OS X, and possibly a little bit of the halo effect. Tiger was about when the Mac platform was finally coming out of a slump. It also was not a tower. Another is that the cube was expensive, not having much price differentiation from the workstation model and being anemic in comparison. It was basically a machine designed for form at the expense of function. I'm with onlooker in one way, but I think that the Mac market is now ripe for a consumer tower - something for the power user that's not a pro. Both the mini and the cube showed a problem in how Apple understands market demands, they were technically headless computers, but Apple almost intentionally misunderstood the request.
Even if the market for that type of machine is somewhat small, I think its effects are greater than just for the sales of that machine. I think it was the hobbyist power user that influenced the computer purchases of their friends and family when the personal computer was becoming mainstream. If Apple can win them over, then it's going to be easier to get as many as a dozen other sales per system, by the people that trust that person.
Um, gentlemen, the thread is about the 8-core Mac Pro. If you'd like me to split off the Yet Another Headless Mac Thread posts to their own thread in Future Hardware, I can do that.
Um, gentlemen, the thread is about the 8-core Mac Pro. If you'd like me to split off the Yet Another Headless Mac Thread posts to their own thread in Future Hardware, I can do that.
There are other threads not attached to AI articles?
Comments
So here goes... I just ordered an Asus P5W Deluxe motherboard for my hackintosh.... Gonna team that up with a e6700. I have been frequenting the insanelymac.com forums today. You wouldn't believe how many of those guys have gone that route because apple won't. For all of those nay sayers that a prosumer mac wouldn't sell. There are hundreds of these guys who went through the pain and suffering of building their own because apple doesn't offer such a computer. People say that this prosumer mac would cannibalize iMac sales... apple isn't even selling computers to these guys. I'm jumping on board with them. I'm tired of waiting on apple to make a reasonable computer for my needs.
So what are you going to do when Leopard comes out? Use Vista?
You really think Apple is going to allow that OS to run on a PC?
If it were likely that the Mac OS was going to on a PC after leopard comes out it would be much bigger news. Apple has already stated that Leopard wouldn't run on a regular X86 PC.
So what are you going to do when Leopard comes out? Use Vista?
You really think Apple is going to allow that OS to run on a PC?
If it were likely that the Mac OS was going to on a PC after leopard comes out it would be much bigger news. Apple has already stated that Leopard wouldn't run on a regular X86 PC.
It might work in the sort of crippled way it does on other PC's that it's been hacked into.
It's really more of a hobbyists machine than a practical one.
Intel hasn't announced the Xeon 3.0 Ghz Quad Core yet.
- but apparently it takes 150W
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38724
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
And I would imagine that Apple will quietly switch to it.
It might work in the sort of crippled way it does on other PC's that it's been hacked into.
It's really more of a hobbyists machine than a practical one.
Personally I think there guy's are wasting money b/c it's not going to work at all. Apple is very committed to make sure it wont. They know everything these guy's are doing so obviously that way isn't going to work.
Isn't the OS version they are using now just a developers hack that was done by Apple on purpose to run on x86?
Personally I think there guy's are wasting money b/c it's not going to work at all. Apple is very committed to make sure it wont. They know everything these guy's are doing so obviously that way isn't going to work.
Isn't the OS version they are using now just a developers hack that was done by Apple on purpose to run on x86?
Here's the OSx86 Project website. It seems to be up to 10.4.8. I haven't been keeping track of it, so I don't know how well it runs, but I do know that it doesn't run much very well. There is a problem with drivers.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Intel isn't announcing this 3 GHz Xeon because the current one used by Apple is 150W, essentially an overclocked product that exceeds the pre-defined 120W for Clovertown. They'll release a proper 120W 3 GHz Clovertown later this year.
It seems that the processors are the Xeon X5365. Not sure if and how this fits what you say.
Here's the OSx86 Project website. It seems to be up to 10.4.8. I haven't been keeping track of it, so I don't know how well it runs, but I do know that it doesn't run much very well. There is a problem with drivers.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
I have a mixed bag of success with these OS X builds. I've used the ones from JaS between 10.4.5 through 10.4.8 on a Dell Optiplex (Pentium 4 3.2GHz w/ SSE2 and SSE3). Sometimes everything works smoothly and sometimes it doesn't. There was plenty of BIOS and install option tinking to get it right, like not installing SSE3 and turnign off hyperthreading. Apps like iTunes often crashed and before build 10.4.8 I was unable to get the on-board NIC and the PCI NIC to work, though every other driver worked natively.
I mainly used it to showcase some of OS X's abilities to some techy, but non-Mac using friends as I had no network connection for it until recently. One of the things I liked was timing how long it took to start in Windows mode. About a minute, whch is pretty damn fast for a WIndows machine. Then timing it in OS X mode. This hacked version of OS X running on a Dell encrusted Pentium with 512MB RAM would start in 21 seconds. That is damn fast for any Mac. Not sure how they did that.
Overall, It's not bad to tinker with if you have an old x86 machine lying around. I defintiely learned quite a few things about the OS X environment.
As you say-"hundreds". Hundreds do not make a market. Hundreds of thousands begin to.
While I would like to see one myself, Apple must think there is a good reason for not having one.
Compared to most folks, you guys aren't reasonable. You're driven. There isn't anything wrong with that, but most people don't care enough.
For everyone who's willing to hack, there's a hundred who say forget it and just go on using windows. You guys say there's not a market, but honestly, how big do you think the markets Apple competes in are? Premium thin and light, premium all in one, content creation workstation not what I'd call high volume markets.
YES! I expect a high end Mac Pro HD with BTO Blu-Ray and higher end graphics cards at NAB.
I expect this as well. Apple is going to have to get Blu-Ray into its products soon, and the Pro models would be the obvious first machines to embrace the new tech. The Mac Pro offers the added benefit of more internal space if the drives require more physical space.
I'm hoping that new GPU's are introduced for the Mac Pro at NAB. We know there are better cards out there so it's just a matter of time before they are included in the BTO list.
With the price drop on the current monitors, I'm hoping we'll see some LCD lit displays with the iSight built in. It would be amazing to see Apple impliment the patent they have of the cameras built right into the screen allowing eye contact on video chats.
I'm going to wait until NAB until I buy, hoping for updates, but this 8-Core machine will stand proudly on my desk regardless.
It's been a perfect opportunity for years, or so we like to think, but Apple doesn't agree.
When the G5 tower first came out, some here might remember, I proposed an idea for a $999 model, that even my friends in Apple engineering thought was a good one, but told me would never happen.
So far, they've been right.
So why is Apple so reluctant to do a Mac Headless Desktop?
- it seems loads of people would like one - for all the obvious reasons
- is it just that SteveJ doesn't want to do it, for some unfathomable aesthetic reason?
- it seems like an easy way for Apple to pick up some sales, which must be a good thing?
So why is Apple so reluctant to do a Mac Headless Desktop?
- it seems loads of people would like one - for all the obvious reasons
- is it just that SteveJ doesn't want to do it, for some unfathomable aesthetic reason?
- it seems like an easy way for Apple to pick up some sales, which must be a good thing?
Apple isn't all about Steve Jobs. All decisions are not solely his. They tried the headless Mac once and it failed miserably. Apple released the mini to attend to the lower half of that spectrum which was the greater half, and the mini is a success. Apple has beefed the iMac to attend to another part of the scope, and the iMac is a success. What is left is a very small percentage of users that can buy a low end Mac Pro if they need expandability. After that is a seriously slim amount of users. Apple does research, and obviously there is not a large enough amount of users that does not fall into a "what's left" category for them to reintroduce the cube or a similar set up.
Don't worry though. As the Mac user base grows the chances of another Mac grows as well. Once they feel the have a strong enough user base to build a midrange machine without taking too many sales away from competing products I'm sure they will come out with something else. Until then, that slim minority will have to make do with what is available.
They tried the headless Mac once and it failed miserably.
When was this?
When was this?
June 2000 ? June 2001
June 2000 — June 2001
I assume this is referring to the cube then, something I didn't pick up on before.
I have some problems with that. First is that it was so long ago, the market has changed since then, with people giving Macs a look because of OS X, and possibly a little bit of the halo effect. Tiger was about when the Mac platform was finally coming out of a slump. It also was not a tower. Another is that the cube was expensive, not having much price differentiation from the workstation model and being anemic in comparison. It was basically a machine designed for form at the expense of function. I'm with onlooker in one way, but I think that the Mac market is now ripe for a consumer tower - something for the power user that's not a pro. Both the mini and the cube showed a problem in how Apple understands market demands, they were technically headless computers, but Apple almost intentionally misunderstood the request.
Even if the market for that type of machine is somewhat small, I think its effects are greater than just for the sales of that machine. I think it was the hobbyist power user that influenced the computer purchases of their friends and family when the personal computer was becoming mainstream. If Apple can win them over, then it's going to be easier to get as many as a dozen other sales per system, by the people that trust that person.
June 2000 ? June 2001
How about the time frame from about 1990 until 2004 when it seemed to work for Apple.
How about the time frame from about 1990 until 2004 when it seemed to work for Apple.
I date I responded with was in reference to the G4 Cube.
Which headless Mac(s) in the consumer price range are you referring to?
Um, gentlemen, the thread is about the 8-core Mac Pro. If you'd like me to split off the Yet Another Headless Mac Thread posts to their own thread in Future Hardware, I can do that.
There are other threads not attached to AI articles?