The design works, as it stands. It's still an industry style leader, it's rugged and it's very quiet.
It's massively overbuilt. The aluminum is several times thicker than it needs to be. Pick up a Lian Li or other aluminum PC case and it's a fraction of the weight of the Mac Pro. Pretty much every desktop case is rugged enough. I sure hope you're not in the habit of dropping computers, if that's what you need ruggedness for. While I hate to admit it, today's PCs are also quite quiet, certainly quieter than the old "wind tunnel" PowerMac G4s. Drive noise is the loudest thing about most computers today.
As for "style," that's a matter of taste. I know an awful lot of people who hate the overly busy cheese grater look and I'm not too thrilled with it myself. I still miss the old Quicksilver, the cleanest, sleekest exterior ever on a Mac, not to mention ridiculously easy to open. The drives weren't as easy to install, but it was a hell of a lot easier to install PCI cards in there since the motherboard was wide open when you dropped the door. My dream enclosure would have the Quicksilver look with the motherboard on the drop-down side door, dual optical bays, almost cable-free interior with four easy access HD bays just like the Mac Pro, four USB 2.0, one FireWire and analog audio/headset ports tucked under the front edge where they're easy to get to but a little hidden, and a thin aluminum (rather than steel) chassis under the plastic shell so it's a lot lighter. Go back to curviness instead of this flat-sided look.
It's massively overbuilt. The aluminum is several times thicker than it needs to be. Pick up a Lian Li or other aluminum PC case and it's a fraction of the weight of the Mac Pro. Pretty much every desktop case is rugged enough. I sure hope you're not in the habit of dropping computers, if that's what you need ruggedness for. While I hate to admit it, today's PCs are also quite quiet, certainly quieter than the old "wind tunnel" PowerMac G4s. Drive noise is the loudest thing about most computers today.
As for "style," that's a matter of taste. I know an awful lot of people who hate the overly busy cheese grater look and I'm not too thrilled with it myself. I still miss the old Quicksilver, the cleanest, sleekest exterior ever on a Mac, not to mention ridiculously easy to open. The drives weren't as easy to install, but it was a hell of a lot easier to install PCI cards in there since the motherboard was wide open when you dropped the door. My dream enclosure would have the Quicksilver look with the motherboard on the drop-down side door, dual optical bays, almost cable-free interior with four easy access HD bays just like the Mac Pro, four USB 2.0, one FireWire and analog audio/headset ports tucked under the front edge where they're easy to get to but a little hidden, and a thin aluminum (rather than steel) chassis under the plastic shell so it's a lot lighter. Go back to curviness instead of this flat-sided look.
Nice to see you cut out the main point of my statement.
If they could scale down the same device it would sell.
What does that have to do with anything? You say it's rugged, it's quiet and it's stylish. I say ruggedness isn't needed, PCs are as quiet and style is in the eye of the beholder. Now you claim that all you're saying is it should be smaller? It would still be overbuilt, still not much quieter than current PCs and still ugly in the eyes of many.
The design works, as it stands. It's still an industry style leader, it's rugged and it's very quiet... If they could scale down the same device it would sell.
I agree that the design works. As an Apple certified desktop tech, I appreciate Apple not cramming everything into smaller and smaller designs as it makes it considerably easier to service. Besides that, the current design allows for greater cooling and lowered sound. However, in the end, this is a workstation-class machine so I find all the bickering about fashion and design silly. As a workstation, it's designed to not only be a high-performer (YES, I too am awaiting a Penryn-based Mac Pro), but easy to maintain (i.e. get to hard drives, memory, optical drives, etc.). Whether the case is fashionable is irrelevant to me--what is important is it's ability to perform. I have one at work that sits under my desk--I'm not interested in impressing people--and I'll be buying a Penryn-based Mac Pro once it's released that once it's set up isn't going to be moved around or highly visible.
Let's focus on what's important, high-performance CPU and GPUs, high-capacity hard drives (waiting for 1TB drives), and a high-performance logic board to support it all.
I agree that the design works. As an Apple certified desktop tech, I appreciate Apple not cramming everything into smaller and smaller designs as it makes it considerably easier to service. Besides that, the current design allows for greater cooling and lowered sound. However, in the end, this is a workstation-class machine so I find all the bickering about fashion and design silly. As a workstation, it's designed to not only be a high-performer (YES, I too am awaiting a Penryn-based Mac Pro), but easy to maintain (i.e. get to hard drives, memory, optical drives, etc.). Whether the case is fashionable is irrelevant to me--what is important is it's ability to perform. I have one at work that sits under my desk--I'm not interested in impressing people--and I'll be buying a Penryn-based Mac Pro once it's released that once it's set up isn't going to be moved around or highly visible.
Let's focus on what's important, high-performance CPU and GPUs, high-capacity hard drives (waiting for 1TB drives), and a high-performance logic board to support it all.
But Apple products are about "fashion and design". Am I wrong?
Fashion (on the Mac Pro) may be irrelevant to you, but you are paying (or will be paying) a stiff price for the Mac Pro case which you say, the fashion part, is irrelevant to you. You should be advocating a cheaper case because your Mac Pro will be hidden from sight and the looks of it are irrelevant.
I wonder why Apple puts such "fashion and design" in their workstation (Mac Pro) if the people buying it aren't interested in this "fashion and design" aspect?
That's because they are workstations. Apple has already shrunken the case to the size of a large desktop ATX case and that's a feat all to itself. The current Apple consumer clientele could really care less if the computer actually does the job as long as its thin and cool looking. If apple tries that with the Pros, they could find themselves out of a whole bunch of money.
Do you mean "could NOT care less"?
Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Forgive me if I'm going off topic, but what's the deal with the US version of that phrase missing out the word 'not'? Surely that reverses the meaning?
But Apple products are about "fashion and design". Am I wrong? Fashion (on the Mac Pro) may be irrelevant to you, but you are paying (or will be paying) a stiff price for the Mac Pro case which you say, the fashion part, is irrelevant to you. You should be advocating a cheaper case because your Mac Pro will be hidden from sight and the looks of it are irrelevant. I wonder why Apple puts such "fashion and design" in their workstation (Mac Pro) if the people buying it aren't interested in this "fashion and design" aspect?
Yes, fashion is part of what Apple sells, but I think you can separate fashion from design. The design of the Mac Pro with the heavy aluminum case helps cool the system down and indirectly makes it a quieter system. Does it look "nice"? Yes. Did I buy one early this year because it was fashionable? No. Would a cheaper PC-style case drop the price of the Mac Pro? Sure, but part of the rationale, part of Apple's design, was to use a heavier case to assist in cooling. Just because the design of the Mac Pro looks fashionable I think is a by-product of the design and not an intention. Why did I buy one already and why will I buy a Penryn-based one when available? Superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC.
Sure, but part of the rationale, part of Apple's design, was to use a heavier case to assist in cooling. Just because the design of the Mac Pro looks fashionable I think is a by-product of the design and not an intention. Why did I buy one already and why will I buy a Penryn-based one when available? Superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC.
1. A heavier case does not "assist in cooling." That's nonsense promulgated by people who have never taken an engineering class in their lives. If that were true, the very hot-running supercomputers like Blue Gene/P would be swathed in tons of aluminum. How, pray tell, can the heavy aluminum door on a PowerMac G5/Mac Pro help dissipate heat when it's backed by a plastic door and an air gap, both of which provide insulation? I'm assuming you, as an "Apple desktop tech," have never used one of the lightweight aluminum cases available for PCs, like the Lian Li cases. Even without all the fans connected, they keep the internal components pretty cool. If you appreciate Apple not shrinking enclosures, you must hate the Mini and the iMac.
2. While the innards of a Mac Pro may be easier to get at, it has nothing to do with the external design. That's all internal. Claims like "superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC" make you sound like a complete Mac fanboy. If any Mac has performance superior to a PC or works better than a PC, it's because of the OS and optimization of the applications, especially today since Macs share almost all of their hardware with PCs.
Forgive me if I'm going off topic, but what's the deal with the US version of that phrase missing out the word 'not'? Surely that reverses the meaning?
Right, bugger off, you! Don't lump all Americans into the same ignorant group, just as not all of us voted for the Shrub.
I voted 'Yes', because I think Apple will offer a second tower model with one processor and up to three expansion slots. Apple is not going to introduce a new model with a 5 year old design. Some possible advances the Mac Pro will see are:
Yes they were. Ever been inside one? The aluminum iMacs are much cleaner inside. Compared to the Early and Late 2006 iMacs, they are much nicer. Sure, the machine worked just as well, and none of the internal designs matter to the consumer, but consumers are also swayed by looks, whereas most professionals would buy a computer encased in cardboard, as long as it promised to work better.
Not for a workstation or said buyers. But they sure could cut it down for a mid-tower. Of which there are waaaay more potential buyers.
I don't need 4 hard drive spaces when even two spaces could get me 2 terrabytes of hd room! HD T drives are going for less than £200 pounds (waits for Programmer to tell me that my prices are 'suspicious'....)
And there's gazillions of GPUs out there. Seeing as Ati and Nvidia now have unified drivers for their GPUs, I can't see the problem of Apple supporting more. What's the problem?
Yeesh. They made the iPhone, how hard can supporting a few more gpus going to be?
Not for a workstation or said buyers. But they sure could cut it down for a mid-tower. Of which there are waaaay more potential buyers.
Agreed. When you look at other machines in its class, the Mac Pro is actually pretty small. compared to a Dell precision it is 2 inches shorter, 4/10 of an inch narrower, and 3.6 inches shallower. It's also around 15 pounds lighter than the Dell. For a machine with comparable features that is a very impressive shrink.
I think they will change the design, using similar aesthetics however. The Aluminum look is here for a while. BTW I love my oversized, overpowered, overweight, quad-core behemoth of a desktop. :^)
I say Apple will keep it pretty much the same. Their current cases are so iconic, why fix it if it ain't broken?
Should have said that during the PowerMac G4 Quicksilver phase. Much cleaner look and more comfortable handles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon
the xeon chipset with pcie 2.0 uses FB-DIMMS
Um, what? So does the current Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Agreed. When you look at other machines in its class, the Mac Pro is actually pretty small. compared to a Dell precision it is 2 inches shorter, 4/10 of an inch narrower, and 3.6 inches shallower. It's also around 15 pounds lighter than the Dell. For a machine with comparable features that is a very impressive shrink.
I built my own PC five years ago. It was about 10 pounds lighter than my G4 at the time, which is in turn lighter than the G5. Wider, but not as deep or as tall and had 7 HD bays and 4 5.25" bays.
I built my own PC five years ago. It was about 10 pounds lighter than my G4 at the time, which is in turn lighter than the G5. Wider, but not as deep or as tall and had 7 HD bays and 4 5.25" bays.
Of course a single CPU consumer machine is going to be lighter.
Comments
The design works, as it stands. It's still an industry style leader, it's rugged and it's very quiet.
It's massively overbuilt. The aluminum is several times thicker than it needs to be. Pick up a Lian Li or other aluminum PC case and it's a fraction of the weight of the Mac Pro. Pretty much every desktop case is rugged enough. I sure hope you're not in the habit of dropping computers, if that's what you need ruggedness for. While I hate to admit it, today's PCs are also quite quiet, certainly quieter than the old "wind tunnel" PowerMac G4s. Drive noise is the loudest thing about most computers today.
As for "style," that's a matter of taste. I know an awful lot of people who hate the overly busy cheese grater look and I'm not too thrilled with it myself. I still miss the old Quicksilver, the cleanest, sleekest exterior ever on a Mac, not to mention ridiculously easy to open. The drives weren't as easy to install, but it was a hell of a lot easier to install PCI cards in there since the motherboard was wide open when you dropped the door. My dream enclosure would have the Quicksilver look with the motherboard on the drop-down side door, dual optical bays, almost cable-free interior with four easy access HD bays just like the Mac Pro, four USB 2.0, one FireWire and analog audio/headset ports tucked under the front edge where they're easy to get to but a little hidden, and a thin aluminum (rather than steel) chassis under the plastic shell so it's a lot lighter. Go back to curviness instead of this flat-sided look.
It's massively overbuilt. The aluminum is several times thicker than it needs to be. Pick up a Lian Li or other aluminum PC case and it's a fraction of the weight of the Mac Pro. Pretty much every desktop case is rugged enough. I sure hope you're not in the habit of dropping computers, if that's what you need ruggedness for. While I hate to admit it, today's PCs are also quite quiet, certainly quieter than the old "wind tunnel" PowerMac G4s. Drive noise is the loudest thing about most computers today.
As for "style," that's a matter of taste. I know an awful lot of people who hate the overly busy cheese grater look and I'm not too thrilled with it myself. I still miss the old Quicksilver, the cleanest, sleekest exterior ever on a Mac, not to mention ridiculously easy to open. The drives weren't as easy to install, but it was a hell of a lot easier to install PCI cards in there since the motherboard was wide open when you dropped the door. My dream enclosure would have the Quicksilver look with the motherboard on the drop-down side door, dual optical bays, almost cable-free interior with four easy access HD bays just like the Mac Pro, four USB 2.0, one FireWire and analog audio/headset ports tucked under the front edge where they're easy to get to but a little hidden, and a thin aluminum (rather than steel) chassis under the plastic shell so it's a lot lighter. Go back to curviness instead of this flat-sided look.
Nice to see you cut out the main point of my statement.
If they could scale down the same device it would sell.
The design works, as it stands. It's still an industry style leader, it's rugged and it's very quiet... If they could scale down the same device it would sell.
I agree that the design works. As an Apple certified desktop tech, I appreciate Apple not cramming everything into smaller and smaller designs as it makes it considerably easier to service. Besides that, the current design allows for greater cooling and lowered sound. However, in the end, this is a workstation-class machine so I find all the bickering about fashion and design silly.
Let's focus on what's important, high-performance CPU and GPUs, high-capacity hard drives (waiting for 1TB drives), and a high-performance logic board to support it all.
I agree that the design works. As an Apple certified desktop tech, I appreciate Apple not cramming everything into smaller and smaller designs as it makes it considerably easier to service. Besides that, the current design allows for greater cooling and lowered sound. However, in the end, this is a workstation-class machine so I find all the bickering about fashion and design silly.
Let's focus on what's important, high-performance CPU and GPUs, high-capacity hard drives (waiting for 1TB drives), and a high-performance logic board to support it all.
But Apple products are about "fashion and design". Am I wrong?
Fashion (on the Mac Pro) may be irrelevant to you, but you are paying (or will be paying) a stiff price for the Mac Pro case which you say, the fashion part, is irrelevant to you. You should be advocating a cheaper case because your Mac Pro will be hidden from sight and the looks of it are irrelevant.
I wonder why Apple puts such "fashion and design" in their workstation (Mac Pro) if the people buying it aren't interested in this "fashion and design" aspect?
That's because they are workstations. Apple has already shrunken the case to the size of a large desktop ATX case and that's a feat all to itself. The current Apple consumer clientele could really care less if the computer actually does the job as long as its thin and cool looking. If apple tries that with the Pros, they could find themselves out of a whole bunch of money.
Do you mean "could NOT care less"?
Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Forgive me if I'm going off topic, but what's the deal with the US version of that phrase missing out the word 'not'? Surely that reverses the meaning?
But Apple products are about "fashion and design". Am I wrong? Fashion (on the Mac Pro) may be irrelevant to you, but you are paying (or will be paying) a stiff price for the Mac Pro case which you say, the fashion part, is irrelevant to you. You should be advocating a cheaper case because your Mac Pro will be hidden from sight and the looks of it are irrelevant. I wonder why Apple puts such "fashion and design" in their workstation (Mac Pro) if the people buying it aren't interested in this "fashion and design" aspect?
Yes, fashion is part of what Apple sells, but I think you can separate fashion from design. The design of the Mac Pro with the heavy aluminum case helps cool the system down and indirectly makes it a quieter system. Does it look "nice"? Yes. Did I buy one early this year because it was fashionable? No. Would a cheaper PC-style case drop the price of the Mac Pro? Sure, but part of the rationale, part of Apple's design, was to use a heavier case to assist in cooling. Just because the design of the Mac Pro looks fashionable I think is a by-product of the design and not an intention. Why did I buy one already and why will I buy a Penryn-based one when available? Superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC.
Sure, but part of the rationale, part of Apple's design, was to use a heavier case to assist in cooling. Just because the design of the Mac Pro looks fashionable I think is a by-product of the design and not an intention. Why did I buy one already and why will I buy a Penryn-based one when available? Superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC.
1. A heavier case does not "assist in cooling." That's nonsense promulgated by people who have never taken an engineering class in their lives. If that were true, the very hot-running supercomputers like Blue Gene/P would be swathed in tons of aluminum. How, pray tell, can the heavy aluminum door on a PowerMac G5/Mac Pro help dissipate heat when it's backed by a plastic door and an air gap, both of which provide insulation? I'm assuming you, as an "Apple desktop tech," have never used one of the lightweight aluminum cases available for PCs, like the Lian Li cases. Even without all the fans connected, they keep the internal components pretty cool. If you appreciate Apple not shrinking enclosures, you must hate the Mini and the iMac.
2. While the innards of a Mac Pro may be easier to get at, it has nothing to do with the external design. That's all internal. Claims like "superior performance and a design that allows the computer to work better than any PC" make you sound like a complete Mac fanboy. If any Mac has performance superior to a PC or works better than a PC, it's because of the OS and optimization of the applications, especially today since Macs share almost all of their hardware with PCs.
Do you mean "could NOT care less"?
Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Forgive me if I'm going off topic, but what's the deal with the US version of that phrase missing out the word 'not'? Surely that reverses the meaning?
Right, bugger off, you!
I voted 'Yes', because I think Apple will offer a second tower model with one processor and up to three expansion slots. Apple is not going to introduce a new model with a 5 year old design. Some possible advances the Mac Pro will see are:
the xeon chipset with pcie 2.0 uses FB-DIMMS
I say Apple will keep it pretty much the same. Their current cases are so iconic, why fix it if it ain't broken?
White iMacs weren't broken either
White iMacs weren't broken either
But were they fixed?
White iMacs weren't broken either
Yes they were. Ever been inside one? The aluminum iMacs are much cleaner inside. Compared to the Early and Late 2006 iMacs, they are much nicer. Sure, the machine worked just as well, and none of the internal designs matter to the consumer, but consumers are also swayed by looks, whereas most professionals would buy a computer encased in cardboard, as long as it promised to work better.
Yes they were. Ever been inside one?
Some people have no manners at all
It's massively overbuilt.
Agreed. Kindof.
Not for a workstation or said buyers. But they sure could cut it down for a mid-tower. Of which there are waaaay more potential buyers.
I don't need 4 hard drive spaces when even two spaces could get me 2 terrabytes of hd room! HD T drives are going for less than £200 pounds (waits for Programmer to tell me that my prices are 'suspicious'....)
And there's gazillions of GPUs out there. Seeing as Ati and Nvidia now have unified drivers for their GPUs, I can't see the problem of Apple supporting more. What's the problem?
Yeesh. They made the iPhone, how hard can supporting a few more gpus going to be?
The 'easy' stuff is never easy with Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Agreed. Kindof.
Not for a workstation or said buyers. But they sure could cut it down for a mid-tower. Of which there are waaaay more potential buyers.
Agreed. When you look at other machines in its class, the Mac Pro is actually pretty small. compared to a Dell precision it is 2 inches shorter, 4/10 of an inch narrower, and 3.6 inches shallower. It's also around 15 pounds lighter than the Dell. For a machine with comparable features that is a very impressive shrink.
FOXPhotog
Mac Pro
Quad-Core 2.66
metric-ton of storage
and a bunch of memory to boot!
I say Apple will keep it pretty much the same. Their current cases are so iconic, why fix it if it ain't broken?
Should have said that during the PowerMac G4 Quicksilver phase. Much cleaner look and more comfortable handles.
the xeon chipset with pcie 2.0 uses FB-DIMMS
Um, what? So does the current Mac Pro.
Agreed. When you look at other machines in its class, the Mac Pro is actually pretty small. compared to a Dell precision it is 2 inches shorter, 4/10 of an inch narrower, and 3.6 inches shallower. It's also around 15 pounds lighter than the Dell. For a machine with comparable features that is a very impressive shrink.
I built my own PC five years ago. It was about 10 pounds lighter than my G4 at the time, which is in turn lighter than the G5. Wider, but not as deep or as tall and had 7 HD bays and 4 5.25" bays.
I built my own PC five years ago. It was about 10 pounds lighter than my G4 at the time, which is in turn lighter than the G5. Wider, but not as deep or as tall and had 7 HD bays and 4 5.25" bays.
Of course a single CPU consumer machine is going to be lighter.