I call your bluff. I keep thinking about the phrase "Timing is everything" and I believe the time for an xMac is here. Mac OS X was developed in parallel for the PPC and x86 so when the time to switch was right, Apple could make the announcement and start the conversion without breaking a sweat, which they did. After Leopard is released then it will be time for the xMac to be unleashed on the public. Why after Leopard? Well, because (1) Boot Camp will be an officially supported feature of Leopard and (2) it will increase Leopard sales.
I don't see what any of this has to do with an xMac.
If this report is indeed true (and yes, I understand how suspect MOSR is), I have a hard time contemplating any possible outcome OTHER than some rendition of an xMac. What exactly that means is anybody's guess, but the evidence offered would seem to suggest that Apple is intending increase their product line.
What would this mean? Well, for all we know it may simply mean that the Mac Pros will be offered with two different kinds of chips. This seems unlikely to me, however, due to the differences in architecture. It honestly appears that we may indeed see the introduction of a 2nd "Mac Pro."
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
RAID-0 only needs software. The Apple RAID board does do RAID 5. Apple supports up to four 30" and four 24" displays as-is, if you buy four of the 7300 cards.
Otherwise, I agree that the HD formats and graphics performance options are the main thing that can improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
What proportion of the markets that demand good graphics actually demand SLI? I think first, it's better to ask for a reasonably current single card, and maybe a better base model. I just don't see dual cards as being that relevant, that's a few steps away when Apple is a few steps behind on the models they use.
I doubt they would get a pre-release GeForce or Radeon HD part into their system. Apple can get Intel to do things like that, but Apple cant threaten to go to another company if they don?t get special treatment. Besides do you even want a GPU at launch now-adays with all of the ridiculous problems some of the recent parts have had?
That aren?t to many limits on Apple as for how far the graphics can scale. SLI isn?t likely to happen anytime soon not because of an EFI, chipset (Intel has made motherboards with SLI and demoed them), etc problem. Its simply because you would have to double the complexity of the drivers and work the kinks out.
Apple most likely just want to stay out of the SLI and Crossfire battles. Apple likes to take GPU solutions from ATI and Nvidia, that way they can play off each other with pricing and Apple doesn?t get locked down. Remember Apple usually likes to buy direct from chip makers to avoid cost run ups.
SLI is a bit of a joke unless your running heavy GPU assisted rendering or running customized code on it. Gamers don?t need SLI, that a myth. You?re better off buying a higher end card, and if you have that higher end card you basically have to be running a multi monitor gaming system or a huge screen now a days (I have a 22" HD LCD and 8800GTS card in a windows box to play games and even Bioshock runs fine at full quality settings). It?s cheaper, more stable, and brings down the overbuilding required to support the decreased tolerances.
Understand that with a workstation the goal is to get something that is just as reliable and stable as it is powerful. SLI and Crosfire isn?t as stable and reliable even on Windows yet let alone a new platform without years of bug bashing and monthly or more often driver refinements.
Besides would you rather have, the new OpenGL or dual GPU setups?
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Apple wants a cheap BluRay drive and cheap high density optical media. No one is there yet. Until that happens I don’t see it becoming standard or even an option anytime soon.
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Apple wants a cheap BluRay drive and cheap high density optical media. No one is there yet. Until that happens I don’t see it becoming standard or even an option anytime soon.
I don't believe it's the cost of the drive so much that's holding them back. Internal DVD writers are available for under $750.
When I bought my Digital Audio model back when, it included the Pioneer DVD recorder, a 2x speed model. At that time the Pioneer was selling, as an external, for over $1,000. But, Apple wanted to put this in the machine. The price of the machine was only a hundred, or so, more than the previous top line model without it.
It's not the price, it's the uncertainty, and the fact that 10.4 doesn't have the built-in DRM for it, which supposedly, 10.5 will. without that, there is no certainty that the unit will be able to play hi-def movies, because it needs HDCP throughout the system, from the player to the monitor.
Right now, Apple has none of that. They don't have it in the OS. They don't have it in the video cards, and, most importantly, because the others can be added without too much fuss, they don't have video monitors with HDCD inputs.
These are the reasons we haven't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, Hp, and others, have been happily adding it to their machines.
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
I think that's a given, but the thing is, we're very likely to get that on the next rev anyway. I think we're talking about stuff that we think should be on the next rev but aren't expecting it because it's Apple.
Quote:
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD
That's not completely true. It's a bit old, but:
"Apple is committed to both emerging high definition DVD standards—Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD. Apple is an active member of the DVD Forum which developed the HD DVD standard, and last month joined the Board of Directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association."
I'd argue that Apple really doesn't support either format, being on the board is irrelevant. Even FC Studio 2 really offers no way to author the discs in either format.
Quote:
, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Where did you get all that? I can't find any independent corroboration of that.
I don't believe it's the cost of the drive so much that's holding them back. Internal DVD writers are available for under $750.
When I bought my Digital Audio model back when, it included the Pioneer DVD recorder, a 2x speed model. At that time the Pioneer was selling, as an external, for over $1,000. But, Apple wanted to put this in the machine. The price of the machine was only a hundred, or so, more than the previous top line model without it.
It's not the price, it's the uncertainty, and the fact that 10.4 doesn't have the built-in DRM for it, which supposedly, 10.5 will. without that, there is no certainty that the unit will be able to play hi-def movies, because it needs HDCP throughout the system, from the player to the monitor.
Right now, Apple has none of that. They don't have it in the OS. They don't have it in the video cards, and, most importantly, because the others can be added without too much fuss, they don't have video monitors with HDCD inputs.
These are the reasons we haven't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, Hp, and others, have been happily adding it to their machines.
you need a HDCP video card as well this may be why the new imacs are useing an ATI 2400 card
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3... All cards would be possible in the machine that does have a graphics slot if Apple used BIOS.
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3... All cards would be possible in the machine that does have a graphics slot if Apple used BIOS.
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
Aren't EFI cards supposed to be coming relatively soon due Vista? I thought I read that somewhere, but I'm not positive.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3... All cards would be possible in the machine that does have a graphics slot if Apple used BIOS.
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
That's wrong. Just how many cards has Apple had over the past few years before moving to Intel? The only real difference then was the drivers. There was a time where every card manufacturer started to make cards for the PPC when it first came out, and again when OS X first came out. But most of those companies died out on the Mac because of lack of sales. Even Mac only companies stopped making cards, or fail to export them to the USA.
Sales are everything. If the numbers were there, the cards would follow, EFI or not.
Don't forget that cards are available for all the Windows Itanium systems. they DO use UEFI.
If card makers were serious, they could speak to Apple about this, and see what response Apple would give about supplying them with the required technical information?if Apple cared. There is no reason to believe that they do.
I remember that it was said, before Apple moved to Intel, that we didn't get cards for that software reason (drivers, BIOS, etc), but ATI did come out with one, proving that was nonsense. The same is true here as well.
You have to remember that Apple is likely not selling much more than 500,000 Mac Pro's a year. Most people will stick with Apple's card offerings. How many does that leave for other companies? Not many. ATI has been loyal to Apple, producing cards independently, but they have given up. It's not so much the EFI/BIOS thing, though that's certainly another hump to get over, but the boxing, marketing, drivers, software other than the drivers, cooperation from Apple, etc.
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
Vista SP1 includes UEFI. You'll see more cards built for this soon afterwards.
That's wrong. Just how many cards has Apple had over the past few years before moving to Intel? The only real difference then was the drivers. There was a time where every card manufacturer started to make cards for the PPC when it first came out, and again when OS X first came out. But most of those companies died out on the Mac because of lack of sales. Even Mac only companies stopped making cards, or fail to export them to the USA.
Sales are everything. If the numbers were there, the cards would follow, EFI or not.
Don't forget that cards are available for all the Windows Itanium systems. they DO use UEFI.
If card makers were serious, they could speak to Apple about this, and see what response Apple would give about supplying them with the required technical information?if Apple cared. There is no reason to believe that they do.
I remember that it was said, before Apple moved to Intel, that we didn't get cards for that software reason (drivers, BIOS, etc), but ATI did come out with one, proving that was nonsense. The same is true here as well.
You have to remember that Apple is likely not selling much more than 500,000 Mac Pro's a year. Most people will stick with Apple's card offerings. How many does that leave for other companies? Not many. ATI has been loyal to Apple, producing cards independently, but they have given up. It's not so much the EFI/BIOS thing, though that's certainly another hump to get over, but the boxing, marketing, drivers, software other than the drivers, cooperation from Apple, etc.
But those were PPC drivers. The Intel transition would give us parity on x86 in which transforming a Windows driver to Mac on the same x86 platform should be a walk in the park for those interested. And for Apple. It's not a giant pain in the ass anymore.
But those were PPC drivers. The Intel transition would give us parity on x86 in which transforming a Windows driver to Mac on the same x86 platform should be a walk in the park for those interested. And for Apple. It's not a giant pain in the ass anymore.
They're not PPC drivers, they're OS drivers. They have to be written no matter which chip is being used. It isn't any more difficult writing them for PPC than for x86. UEFI is just a bit more work.
Are you familiar with the problems the various distro's have with drivers for graphic cards, printers, etc.? They all use the x86 chip, and a BIOS. Still, there are very few pieces of equipment for them. The drivers have to be written.
I guarantee that if Apple comes out with an xMac, and it sells well, we will get the cards.
It's not just Apple's video drivers that are slack, it's their audio drivers too. The sound in my iMac has background hissing and popping at some points and it's not a hardware issue because it's not there in Windows.
They're not PPC drivers, they're OS drivers. They have to be written no matter which chip is being used. It isn't any more difficult writing them for PPC than for x86. UEFI is just a bit more work.
Are you familiar with the problems the various distro's have with drivers for graphic cards, printers, etc.? They all use the x86 chip, and a BIOS. Still, there are very few pieces of equipment for them. The drivers have to be written.
I guarantee that if Apple comes out with an xMac, and it sells well, we will get the cards.
I'm not talking about writing it form the ground up. I'm talking about conversion of existing drivers. It's one less thing to worry about.
Let's hope it all becomes true. If so, I'll take a brand new Quad-core Penryn iMac with a Blue-ray drive.
That would definitely bring back the WOW! factor in the iMac brand. Impress me, Apple!
Go Intel, go!
ugh so now the mac Pros will be $4k, the iMacs will be $2.5k and even more former Mac users are going to be able to justify suffering on Windows for a powerful $700 PC. Way to go Apple. At this rate, in 5 years, there won't be a Mac for less than $10k but it will be 32 core and have 256 GB of RAM.
Comments
I call your bluff. I keep thinking about the phrase "Timing is everything" and I believe the time for an xMac is here. Mac OS X was developed in parallel for the PPC and x86 so when the time to switch was right, Apple could make the announcement and start the conversion without breaking a sweat, which they did. After Leopard is released then it will be time for the xMac to be unleashed on the public. Why after Leopard? Well, because (1) Boot Camp will be an officially supported feature of Leopard and (2) it will increase Leopard sales.
I don't see what any of this has to do with an xMac.
The time has always been "right".
What would this mean? Well, for all we know it may simply mean that the Mac Pros will be offered with two different kinds of chips. This seems unlikely to me, however, due to the differences in architecture. It honestly appears that we may indeed see the introduction of a 2nd "Mac Pro."
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
RAID-0 only needs software. The Apple RAID board does do RAID 5. Apple supports up to four 30" and four 24" displays as-is, if you buy four of the 7300 cards.
Otherwise, I agree that the HD formats and graphics performance options are the main thing that can improve.
What about some new stellar Geforce options? What about Nvidia *****X2 SLI Card drivers? Graphics options and capabilities is why the Apple workstation is so frowned opon. It has limits. What kind of workstation has limits?
What proportion of the markets that demand good graphics actually demand SLI? I think first, it's better to ask for a reasonably current single card, and maybe a better base model. I just don't see dual cards as being that relevant, that's a few steps away when Apple is a few steps behind on the models they use.
That aren?t to many limits on Apple as for how far the graphics can scale. SLI isn?t likely to happen anytime soon not because of an EFI, chipset (Intel has made motherboards with SLI and demoed them), etc problem. Its simply because you would have to double the complexity of the drivers and work the kinks out.
Apple most likely just want to stay out of the SLI and Crossfire battles. Apple likes to take GPU solutions from ATI and Nvidia, that way they can play off each other with pricing and Apple doesn?t get locked down. Remember Apple usually likes to buy direct from chip makers to avoid cost run ups.
SLI is a bit of a joke unless your running heavy GPU assisted rendering or running customized code on it. Gamers don?t need SLI, that a myth. You?re better off buying a higher end card, and if you have that higher end card you basically have to be running a multi monitor gaming system or a huge screen now a days (I have a 22" HD LCD and 8800GTS card in a windows box to play games and even Bioshock runs fine at full quality settings). It?s cheaper, more stable, and brings down the overbuilding required to support the decreased tolerances.
Understand that with a workstation the goal is to get something that is just as reliable and stable as it is powerful. SLI and Crosfire isn?t as stable and reliable even on Windows yet let alone a new platform without years of bug bashing and monthly or more often driver refinements.
Besides would you rather have, the new OpenGL or dual GPU setups?
So, what would you guys like to see in the new Mac Pro (enclosure aside)?
It's already got eight processor cores, four-way RAID 0 via dedicated hardware, support for two 30" Cinema Displays, concatenated 1GBps Ethernet and two DVD burners.
So what does that leave? BluRay/HD-DVD and better graphics options? Surely these are realistic as they are simple drop-ins?
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Apple wants a cheap BluRay drive and cheap high density optical media. No one is there yet. Until that happens I don’t see it becoming standard or even an option anytime soon.
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Apple wants a cheap BluRay drive and cheap high density optical media. No one is there yet. Until that happens I don’t see it becoming standard or even an option anytime soon.
I don't believe it's the cost of the drive so much that's holding them back. Internal DVD writers are available for under $750.
When I bought my Digital Audio model back when, it included the Pioneer DVD recorder, a 2x speed model. At that time the Pioneer was selling, as an external, for over $1,000. But, Apple wanted to put this in the machine. The price of the machine was only a hundred, or so, more than the previous top line model without it.
It's not the price, it's the uncertainty, and the fact that 10.4 doesn't have the built-in DRM for it, which supposedly, 10.5 will. without that, there is no certainty that the unit will be able to play hi-def movies, because it needs HDCP throughout the system, from the player to the monitor.
Right now, Apple has none of that. They don't have it in the OS. They don't have it in the video cards, and, most importantly, because the others can be added without too much fuss, they don't have video monitors with HDCD inputs.
These are the reasons we haven't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, Hp, and others, have been happily adding it to their machines.
This is a bit like saying there was no change between the G5 and the current Mac pro towers. Sure we aren’t moving away from another platform, but most of these features were available in the G5.
What you are getting:
You are getting new instruction sets, die shrink, superior memory subsystem (the chipset can handle double the memory density per socket), PCIe 2.0, faster memory, faster clock speeds, faster front side bus, more intelligent resource sharing between cores and sockets, other nice tweaks resulting in a double digit performance increase clock per clock. And this is what we know about the platform from just what Intel is doing.
We have no idea what Apple is doing just on their end.
I think that's a given, but the thing is, we're very likely to get that on the next rev anyway. I think we're talking about stuff that we think should be on the next rev but aren't expecting it because it's Apple.
And I still say BluRay/HD-DVD isn’t going to happen for a while. BluRay hardware and media is still way to expensive. Apple isn’t going to invest in something on their platform when there is a 50 percent chance of the medium becoming the next minidisc. You can say whatever you want but Apple doesn’t support HD-DVD
That's not completely true. It's a bit old, but:
"Apple is committed to both emerging high definition DVD standards—Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD. Apple is an active member of the DVD Forum which developed the HD DVD standard, and last month joined the Board of Directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association."
Emphasis is mine.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/17hd.html
I'd argue that Apple really doesn't support either format, being on the board is irrelevant. Even FC Studio 2 really offers no way to author the discs in either format.
, and Blue Ray is going to have a hard time when laws in China are going to prevent Blue Ray pick ups being used and made in the country for construction. Remember the thing that got down DVD costs and into the hands of the mass market was a flood of cheap Chinese DVD players. The new Chinese DVD regulations for their new format say only those blue diode pickups can be produced and used in China. HD DVD’s pickups are compatible with slight tweaking, bluray’s is totally incompatible.
Where did you get all that? I can't find any independent corroboration of that.
I don't believe it's the cost of the drive so much that's holding them back. Internal DVD writers are available for under $750.
When I bought my Digital Audio model back when, it included the Pioneer DVD recorder, a 2x speed model. At that time the Pioneer was selling, as an external, for over $1,000. But, Apple wanted to put this in the machine. The price of the machine was only a hundred, or so, more than the previous top line model without it.
It's not the price, it's the uncertainty, and the fact that 10.4 doesn't have the built-in DRM for it, which supposedly, 10.5 will. without that, there is no certainty that the unit will be able to play hi-def movies, because it needs HDCP throughout the system, from the player to the monitor.
Right now, Apple has none of that. They don't have it in the OS. They don't have it in the video cards, and, most importantly, because the others can be added without too much fuss, they don't have video monitors with HDCD inputs.
These are the reasons we haven't seen it yet.
Meanwhile, Hp, and others, have been happily adding it to their machines.
you need a HDCP video card as well this may be why the new imacs are useing an ATI 2400 card
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3...
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3...
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
Aren't EFI cards supposed to be coming relatively soon due Vista? I thought I read that somewhere, but I'm not positive.
BIOS has everything to do with it. It's as simple as this; how many EFI cards are there? like 3...
Yes Apple needs more machines that have a graphics slot, but what's the point if they chop themselves off at the ankles by limiting their options by excluding 99% of the cards out there?
Saying bios has nothing to do with it is a ridiculous statement.
That's wrong. Just how many cards has Apple had over the past few years before moving to Intel? The only real difference then was the drivers. There was a time where every card manufacturer started to make cards for the PPC when it first came out, and again when OS X first came out. But most of those companies died out on the Mac because of lack of sales. Even Mac only companies stopped making cards, or fail to export them to the USA.
Sales are everything. If the numbers were there, the cards would follow, EFI or not.
Don't forget that cards are available for all the Windows Itanium systems. they DO use UEFI.
If card makers were serious, they could speak to Apple about this, and see what response Apple would give about supplying them with the required technical information?if Apple cared. There is no reason to believe that they do.
I remember that it was said, before Apple moved to Intel, that we didn't get cards for that software reason (drivers, BIOS, etc), but ATI did come out with one, proving that was nonsense. The same is true here as well.
You have to remember that Apple is likely not selling much more than 500,000 Mac Pro's a year. Most people will stick with Apple's card offerings. How many does that leave for other companies? Not many. ATI has been loyal to Apple, producing cards independently, but they have given up. It's not so much the EFI/BIOS thing, though that's certainly another hump to get over, but the boxing, marketing, drivers, software other than the drivers, cooperation from Apple, etc.
No, vista doesn't boot EFI. AFAIK.
MS said that it should be coming for the 64 bit version with SP1. We'll see.
This has nothing to do with BIOS, and you know it. UEFI is well characterized. They could write for it as Apple does. It's no big deal. All it is is number of machines sold. SLI isn't a reason either. Not that many people use it, despite the hype. We do have the Quadro card.
If Apple gets the sales up sharply, we'll see some more cards, otherwise we won't.
My betting is that we won't, because Apple needs more than the Mac Pro out there with a graphics slot. It's the gamers that drive all but the highest end 3D card industry.
Without an iMac, or other machine with a slot, Apple is doomed from the start.
What they should do, is to offer to pay for driver development costs. That would be minor, and get some cards for us, but they won't do that, because they can't make money on it, and that's all they seem to be interested in doing these days. They could make it back by insisting that the cards only sell through Apple, but I don't think they care. They give us what they think we need, and that's it.
Vista SP1 includes UEFI. You'll see more cards built for this soon afterwards.
BAM! The most amazing thing apple has ever produced...
<insert product info>
... And this is just the beginning.
That's wrong. Just how many cards has Apple had over the past few years before moving to Intel? The only real difference then was the drivers. There was a time where every card manufacturer started to make cards for the PPC when it first came out, and again when OS X first came out. But most of those companies died out on the Mac because of lack of sales. Even Mac only companies stopped making cards, or fail to export them to the USA.
Sales are everything. If the numbers were there, the cards would follow, EFI or not.
Don't forget that cards are available for all the Windows Itanium systems. they DO use UEFI.
If card makers were serious, they could speak to Apple about this, and see what response Apple would give about supplying them with the required technical information?if Apple cared. There is no reason to believe that they do.
I remember that it was said, before Apple moved to Intel, that we didn't get cards for that software reason (drivers, BIOS, etc), but ATI did come out with one, proving that was nonsense. The same is true here as well.
You have to remember that Apple is likely not selling much more than 500,000 Mac Pro's a year. Most people will stick with Apple's card offerings. How many does that leave for other companies? Not many. ATI has been loyal to Apple, producing cards independently, but they have given up. It's not so much the EFI/BIOS thing, though that's certainly another hump to get over, but the boxing, marketing, drivers, software other than the drivers, cooperation from Apple, etc.
But those were PPC drivers. The Intel transition would give us parity on x86 in which transforming a Windows driver to Mac on the same x86 platform should be a walk in the park for those interested. And for Apple. It's not a giant pain in the ass anymore.
But those were PPC drivers. The Intel transition would give us parity on x86 in which transforming a Windows driver to Mac on the same x86 platform should be a walk in the park for those interested. And for Apple. It's not a giant pain in the ass anymore.
They're not PPC drivers, they're OS drivers. They have to be written no matter which chip is being used. It isn't any more difficult writing them for PPC than for x86. UEFI is just a bit more work.
Are you familiar with the problems the various distro's have with drivers for graphic cards, printers, etc.? They all use the x86 chip, and a BIOS. Still, there are very few pieces of equipment for them. The drivers have to be written.
I guarantee that if Apple comes out with an xMac, and it sells well, we will get the cards.
They're not PPC drivers, they're OS drivers. They have to be written no matter which chip is being used. It isn't any more difficult writing them for PPC than for x86. UEFI is just a bit more work.
Are you familiar with the problems the various distro's have with drivers for graphic cards, printers, etc.? They all use the x86 chip, and a BIOS. Still, there are very few pieces of equipment for them. The drivers have to be written.
I guarantee that if Apple comes out with an xMac, and it sells well, we will get the cards.
I'm not talking about writing it form the ground up. I'm talking about conversion of existing drivers. It's one less thing to worry about.
Let's hope it all becomes true. If so, I'll take a brand new Quad-core Penryn iMac with a Blue-ray drive.
That would definitely bring back the WOW! factor in the iMac brand. Impress me, Apple!
Go Intel, go!
ugh so now the mac Pros will be $4k, the iMacs will be $2.5k and even more former Mac users are going to be able to justify suffering on Windows for a powerful $700 PC. Way to go Apple. At this rate, in 5 years, there won't be a Mac for less than $10k but it will be 32 core and have 256 GB of RAM.