Apple has "refreshed" during 2007 (April?) the Mac Pro by adding the 4 x 2 core CPU's. You are free to consider that as a real or not so much real update, but I am afraid that in Apple's book it does count as one.
Wrong! Apple does not even list the addition of the 8 core on their date introduced web page.
Wrong! Apple does not even list the addition of the 8 core on their date introduced web page.
*snip*
Don't you just love it when people make silly claims without even looking into it.
And PB, it was not a refresh, it was the addition of an option. A refresh is generally considered as refreshing the processors while leaving the rest of the specs untouched. An update is generally taken to be a complete overhaul of the machine, which may or may not include a redesign.
So, the Mac Pro did not receive a refresh or an update in 2007. Whether or not the Mac Pro is updated at Macworld at least one thing is clear. Apple has done the pro community a great disservice by letting the thing rot for this long.
Hmmm, seems like the negatives in the poll are climbing slightly. I guess there are some who really don't think we're getting some Mac Pro loving come the 15th.
Hmmm, seems like the negatives in the poll are climbing slightly. I guess there are some who really don't think we're getting some Mac Pro loving come the 15th.
And PB, it was not a refresh, it was the addition of an option.
In the way that Apple offers the Mac Pro, every update would come as the addition/modification of some option(s). Even if suddenly appear 10 different GPU options, there would just be 10 more options in the configuration page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suneohair
A refresh is generally considered as refreshing the processors while leaving the rest of the specs untouched.
I see what you mean, but at the time there were no new processors, with the exception of the 4 x 2 CPU option of last April. And if I am not mistaken, Apple managed to take the lion's part of the high-end Intel processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suneohair
So, the Mac Pro did not receive a refresh or an update in 2007. Whether or not the Mac Pro is updated at Macworld at least one thing is clear. Apple has done the pro community a great disservice by letting the thing rot for this long.
In my opinion the Mac Pro did receive a minor refresh in 2007 with the new octo-option. But as minimal as this may seems in domains where graphics processing matters, it is much bigger in others. But in either way, it does not affects me. And I see no reason for Apple to announce new Mac Pro's in MWSF, unless there are at least new CPU AND new GPU options, if not a complete redesign of the machine.
Not playing with words. You make your own decision based upon Apple's web page. Oops! I believe you already did before you even looked at Apple's web page.
I said updated not refresh, but how ever you word it, no one that uses a Mac Pro thinks the Mac Pro has been updated in almost 2 years.
I am one of those people. When Apple updates the Mac Pro you see things like A Major Announcement. Not many of you have yet come to the realization that It is their flagship. It gets more attention than any product they have. It's the Mac that all users dream of owning but not all can afford. Update, refresh, whatever you call it, it has not happened. If it did you would have remembered it because Steve Jobs would have made you drool over it.
Pardon the previous choice of expression. It was meant as a figure of speech.
I said [U]updated[/U] not refresh, but how ever you word it, no one that uses a Mac Pro thinks the Mac Pro has been updated in almost 2 years.
I am one of those people. When Apple updates the Mac Pro you see things like A Major Announcement. It's their flagship you retards. It gets more attention than any product they have. It's the Mac that all users dream of owning but not all can afford. Update, refresh, whatever you call it, it has not happened. If it did you would have remembered it because Steve Jobs would have made you drool over it.
The Mac Pro suggested (by Apple) configuration is the same as it was in August of 2006 and at the same price points:
Start building your Mac Pro with our suggested configuration:
* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon ?Woodcrest? processors
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive
BTW, speaking of retards, my brother, who was an only child, was the first member of our family to walk upright. Quite an accomplishment for the family and one we are quite proud of.
I don't care what kind of CPU and or graphics they put in a new Mac Pro, I won't buy one unless it's in a redesigned box. I hate that cheese grater enclosure.
Thanks for the heads-up on that, but for some time now with all this gadgetry Apple tries hard to make us think otherwise.
Their flagship computer that is. There is an iMac argument in there, but it's a pointless argument. Arguments like that never go anywhere anyways. Although it's easy to forget about the importance of the Mac Pro when it's been neglected for two years.
Personally all that other crap (gadgetry) I just consider other crap. Needless to say I own some of that other crap.
In the way that Apple offers the Mac Pro, every update would come as the addition/modification of some option(s). Even if suddenly appear 10 different GPU options, there would just be 10 more options in the configuration page.
No, an update to the machine would completely change the line. New Seaburg motherboards. And then new Penryn CPUs and new GPUs. In which there would be new options offered in line with those. In other words, an update implies updated options based on current hardware. They would not be adding Penryn to the already existing options. IT would be replacing them thus an update.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
I see what you mean, but at the time there were no new processors, with the exception of the 4 x 2 CPU option of last April. And if I am not mistaken, Apple managed to take the lion's part of the high-end Intel processors.
Yes, there were new processors. Clovertown CPUs were released November 2006. Their prices and speeds mirrored that of the Woodcrest line, but with a major difference. They were quad-core chips. Apple could have updated the entire line to eight-core in April when they picked up the high end part. I couldn't care any less that they added an expensive option when they could have offered those changes across the entire line.
It seems you hold onto the idea that if Apple doesn't offer it, it doesn't exist. Which is far from the truth. Do you really think Intel dropped a single high clock quad Xeon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
In my opinion the Mac Pro did receive a minor refresh in 2007 with the new octo-option. But as minimal as this may seems in domains where graphics processing matters, it is much bigger in others. But in either way, it does not affects me. And I see no reason for Apple to announce new Mac Pro's in MWSF, unless there are at least new CPU AND new GPU options, if not a complete redesign of the machine.
No, it recieved the addition of an option. No other changes were done to the line. Faster speeds on the existing systems were not offered. And again, the addition of an eight-core option that is only at the top end makes the addition worthless.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but there are new CPU and GPU options. The Penryn Xeons (Harpertowns) are already out there. There have been kexts found in the 10.5.2 seed that suggest new graphics cards (G92 and RV770). The update is long overdue, and the pieces for updating are here. It is time for them to do what they should have done in April, which is update the whole line to eight-core CPUs.
You don't really seem to know much about what is going on. I suggest that you research a little more.
You don't really seem to know much about what is going on. I suggest that you research a little more.
Dont' worry, I am well aware of the latest evolutions. But for some reason Apple chooses to wait... and wait... and....
For the Clovertown it seems the wait was about the 3 GHz parts. Typical Apple attitude? Perhaps. At this point is less clear what happens. Some say that maybe Apple is optimizing for the new instruction set and 10.5.2 will bring the goods. I don't know.
Then there is the BIG issue of GPU offers. It is shocking that a machine costing in its basic configuration more than 2500 euros (sans display and equiped 2 x 512 MB RAM in year 2008 ) comes with a GeForce 7300 GT.
Their flagship computer that is. There is an iMac argument in there, but it's a pointless argument. Arguments like that never go anywhere anyways. Although it's easy to forget about the importance of the Mac Pro when it's been neglected for two years.
The Mac Pro has a heavy heritage haunting it but Apple seems to be interested more in other things. It is a sign of the times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Personally all that other crap (gadgetry) I just consider other crap. Needless to say I own some of that other crap.
Do you really? Then I probably am a really heretic Mac user.
Then there is the BIG issue of GPU offers. It is shocking that a machine costing in its basic configuration more than 2500 euros (sans display and equiped 2 x 512 MB RAM in year 2008 ) comes with a GeForce 7300 GT.
It doesn't make sense that Apple won't even refresh cards in between long updates like this. Is it ironic when they make applications like Motion rely more and more on the GPU?
For the Clovertown it seems the wait was about the 3 GHz parts. Typical Apple attitude? Perhaps. At this point is less clear what happens. Some say that maybe Apple is optimizing for the new instruction set and 10.5.2 will bring the goods. I don't know.
The wait was hardly the issue I was talking about. You said there were no new processors (other than the 3ghz Clovertowns), but there was a whole Clovertown line released that matched the Woodcrests in price. If they wanted to wait for the 3Ghz, sure, but the fact remains that the Mac Pro hasn't offered value since November 2006.
Regardless of whether Apple decides to wait, the Mac Pro is dated, and has been since November 2006. It is clear that Apple needs to update the machines.
The wait was hardly the issue I was talking about. You said there were no new processors (other than the 3ghz Clovertowns), but there was a whole Clovertown line released that matched the Woodcrests in price. If they wanted to wait for the 3Ghz, sure, but the fact remains that the Mac Pro hasn't offered value since November 2006.
I see what you mean, my bad. I had in mind the 3 GHz parts for which Apple apparently waited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suneohair
Regardless of whether Apple decides to wait, the Mac Pro is dated, and has been since November 2006. It is clear that Apple needs to update the machines.
No one says otherwise. Even if the addition of the 4 x 2 option was perceived as a refresh, that does not means that the Mac Pro should not be updated before the end of 2007.
Comments
Apple has "refreshed" during 2007 (April?) the Mac Pro by adding the 4 x 2 core CPU's. You are free to consider that as a real or not so much real update, but I am afraid that in Apple's book it does count as one.
Wrong! Apple does not even list the addition of the 8 core on their date introduced web page.
http://support.apple.com/specs/
Title................Date Introduced
MacBook Pro (Late 2007, 2.4/2.2GHz) \t11/01/2007
MacBook (Late 2007) \t11/01/2007
iPod nano (Third Generation) \t09/05/2007
iPod classic \t09/05/2007
iPod touch \t09/05/2007
iMac (20-inch Mid 2007) \t08/07/2007
Mac mini (Mid 2007) \t08/07/2007
iPhone \t06/29/2007
MacBook Pro (Mid 2007, 2.4/2.2GHz) \t06/05/2007
MacBook (Mid 2007) \t05/15/2007
Apple TV \t03/22/2007
AirPort Extreme (802.11n) \t01/30/2007
Xserve RAID (Early 2007) \t01/23/2007
Xserve (Late 2006) \t11/12/2006
MacBook (Late 2006) \t11/08/2006
MacBook Pro (Late 2006) \t10/24/2006
iPod nano (Second Generation) \t09/12/2006
Fifth Generation iPod (Late 2006) \t09/12/2006
iPod shuffle (Second Generation) \t09/12/2006
iMac (Late 2006) \t09/06/2006
Mac mini (Late 2006) \t09/06/2006
Mac Pro \t08/07/2006
Wrong! Apple does not even list the addition of the 8 core on their date introduced web page.
*snip*
Don't you just love it when people make silly claims without even looking into it.
And PB, it was not a refresh, it was the addition of an option. A refresh is generally considered as refreshing the processors while leaving the rest of the specs untouched. An update is generally taken to be a complete overhaul of the machine, which may or may not include a redesign.
So, the Mac Pro did not receive a refresh or an update in 2007. Whether or not the Mac Pro is updated at Macworld at least one thing is clear. Apple has done the pro community a great disservice by letting the thing rot for this long.
Hmmm, seems like the negatives in the poll are climbing slightly. I guess there are some who really don't think we're getting some Mac Pro loving come the 15th.
It's like 52 vs. 9 what are you talking about?
It's like 52 vs. 9 what are you talking about?
Only that there have been several new negative votes, whereas before there were none. Not implying that there is a groundswell.
And PB, it was not a refresh, it was the addition of an option.
In the way that Apple offers the Mac Pro, every update would come as the addition/modification of some option(s). Even if suddenly appear 10 different GPU options, there would just be 10 more options in the configuration page.
A refresh is generally considered as refreshing the processors while leaving the rest of the specs untouched.
I see what you mean, but at the time there were no new processors, with the exception of the 4 x 2 CPU option of last April. And if I am not mistaken, Apple managed to take the lion's part of the high-end Intel processors.
So, the Mac Pro did not receive a refresh or an update in 2007. Whether or not the Mac Pro is updated at Macworld at least one thing is clear. Apple has done the pro community a great disservice by letting the thing rot for this long.
In my opinion the Mac Pro did receive a minor refresh in 2007 with the new octo-option. But as minimal as this may seems in domains where graphics processing matters, it is much bigger in others.
Wrong! Apple does not even list the addition of the 8 core on their date introduced web page.
http://support.apple.com/specs/
Mac Pro \t08/07/2006
All this proves is that from a support point of view, the specifications of the several Mac Pro configurations are irrelevant.
But if you want to play with the words, fine:
Mac Pro (8-core) User's Guide (Manual)
Mac Pro User's Guide (Manual)
All this proves is that from a support point of view, the specifications of the several Mac Pro configurations are irrelevant.
But if you want to play with the words, fine:
Mac Pro (8-core) User's Guide (Manual)
Mac Pro User's Guide (Manual)
Not playing with words. You make your own decision based upon Apple's web page. Oops! I believe you already did before you even looked at Apple's web page.
I am one of those people. When Apple updates the Mac Pro you see things like A Major Announcement. Not many of you have yet come to the realization that It is their flagship. It gets more attention than any product they have. It's the Mac that all users dream of owning but not all can afford. Update, refresh, whatever you call it, it has not happened. If it did you would have remembered it because Steve Jobs would have made you drool over it.
Pardon the previous choice of expression. It was meant as a figure of speech.
I said [U]updated[/U] not refresh, but how ever you word it, no one that uses a Mac Pro thinks the Mac Pro has been updated in almost 2 years.
I am one of those people. When Apple updates the Mac Pro you see things like A Major Announcement. It's their flagship you retards. It gets more attention than any product they have. It's the Mac that all users dream of owning but not all can afford. Update, refresh, whatever you call it, it has not happened. If it did you would have remembered it because Steve Jobs would have made you drool over it.
The Mac Pro suggested (by Apple) configuration is the same as it was in August of 2006 and at the same price points:
Start building your Mac Pro with our suggested configuration:
* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon ?Woodcrest? processors
* 1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive
BTW, speaking of retards, my brother, who was an only child, was the first member of our family to walk upright. Quite an accomplishment for the family and one we are quite proud of.
Not many of you have yet come to the realization that It is their flagship.
Thanks for the heads-up on that, but for some time now with all this gadgetry Apple tries hard to make us think otherwise.
It gets more attention than any product they have.
Does it really now?
Pardon the previous choice of expression. It was meant as a figure of speech.
Pardoned. As someone who has closely followed your posts for years now, I could not take this literally.
Thanks for the heads-up on that, but for some time now with all this gadgetry Apple tries hard to make us think otherwise.
Their flagship computer that is. There is an iMac argument in there, but it's a pointless argument. Arguments like that never go anywhere anyways. Although it's easy to forget about the importance of the Mac Pro when it's been neglected for two years.
Personally all that other crap (gadgetry) I just consider other crap.
In the way that Apple offers the Mac Pro, every update would come as the addition/modification of some option(s). Even if suddenly appear 10 different GPU options, there would just be 10 more options in the configuration page.
No, an update to the machine would completely change the line. New Seaburg motherboards. And then new Penryn CPUs and new GPUs. In which there would be new options offered in line with those. In other words, an update implies updated options based on current hardware. They would not be adding Penryn to the already existing options. IT would be replacing them thus an update.
I see what you mean, but at the time there were no new processors, with the exception of the 4 x 2 CPU option of last April. And if I am not mistaken, Apple managed to take the lion's part of the high-end Intel processors.
Yes, there were new processors. Clovertown CPUs were released November 2006. Their prices and speeds mirrored that of the Woodcrest line, but with a major difference. They were quad-core chips. Apple could have updated the entire line to eight-core in April when they picked up the high end part. I couldn't care any less that they added an expensive option when they could have offered those changes across the entire line.
It seems you hold onto the idea that if Apple doesn't offer it, it doesn't exist. Which is far from the truth. Do you really think Intel dropped a single high clock quad Xeon?
In my opinion the Mac Pro did receive a minor refresh in 2007 with the new octo-option. But as minimal as this may seems in domains where graphics processing matters, it is much bigger in others.
No, it recieved the addition of an option. No other changes were done to the line. Faster speeds on the existing systems were not offered. And again, the addition of an eight-core option that is only at the top end makes the addition worthless.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but there are new CPU and GPU options. The Penryn Xeons (Harpertowns) are already out there. There have been kexts found in the 10.5.2 seed that suggest new graphics cards (G92 and RV770). The update is long overdue, and the pieces for updating are here. It is time for them to do what they should have done in April, which is update the whole line to eight-core CPUs.
You don't really seem to know much about what is going on. I suggest that you research a little more.
You don't really seem to know much about what is going on. I suggest that you research a little more.
Dont' worry, I am well aware of the latest evolutions. But for some reason Apple chooses to wait... and wait... and....
For the Clovertown it seems the wait was about the 3 GHz parts. Typical Apple attitude? Perhaps. At this point is less clear what happens. Some say that maybe Apple is optimizing for the new instruction set and 10.5.2 will bring the goods. I don't know.
Then there is the BIG issue of GPU offers. It is shocking that a machine costing in its basic configuration more than 2500 euros (sans display and equiped 2 x 512 MB RAM in year 2008
Their flagship computer that is. There is an iMac argument in there, but it's a pointless argument. Arguments like that never go anywhere anyways. Although it's easy to forget about the importance of the Mac Pro when it's been neglected for two years.
The Mac Pro has a heavy heritage haunting it but Apple seems to be interested more in other things. It is a sign of the times.
Personally all that other crap (gadgetry) I just consider other crap.
Do you really? Then I probably am a really heretic Mac user.
Then there is the BIG issue of GPU offers. It is shocking that a machine costing in its basic configuration more than 2500 euros (sans display and equiped 2 x 512 MB RAM in year 2008
It doesn't make sense that Apple won't even refresh cards in between long updates like this. Is it ironic when they make applications like Motion rely more and more on the GPU?
For the Clovertown it seems the wait was about the 3 GHz parts. Typical Apple attitude? Perhaps. At this point is less clear what happens. Some say that maybe Apple is optimizing for the new instruction set and 10.5.2 will bring the goods. I don't know.
The wait was hardly the issue I was talking about. You said there were no new processors (other than the 3ghz Clovertowns), but there was a whole Clovertown line released that matched the Woodcrests in price. If they wanted to wait for the 3Ghz, sure, but the fact remains that the Mac Pro hasn't offered value since November 2006.
Regardless of whether Apple decides to wait, the Mac Pro is dated, and has been since November 2006. It is clear that Apple needs to update the machines.
The wait was hardly the issue I was talking about. You said there were no new processors (other than the 3ghz Clovertowns), but there was a whole Clovertown line released that matched the Woodcrests in price. If they wanted to wait for the 3Ghz, sure, but the fact remains that the Mac Pro hasn't offered value since November 2006.
I see what you mean, my bad. I had in mind the 3 GHz parts for which Apple apparently waited.
Regardless of whether Apple decides to wait, the Mac Pro is dated, and has been since November 2006. It is clear that Apple needs to update the machines.
No one says otherwise. Even if the addition of the 4 x 2 option was perceived as a refresh, that does not means that the Mac Pro should not be updated before the end of 2007.