The post PC world... We all see the clouds, but it's just a HD. Computers worked fine without them. To be honest, I think 64KB of ram is fine if we weren't old to like bells and whistles.
Once wireless bandwidth is reliable and plentiful, by do we need so much hardware? I think we'll be happy with mainframes. I think mainframes will Mak a comeback. Industrialized computing rather than our cottage industry computing.
Reliability, speed, uptime all becomes moot. We buy computers that slowly and surely become less useful as necessary software outpaces our computers. Not that MS Word has really become more useful in 20 years.
Why buy junk and be wasteful, we should be paying for what we use and pay a recurring fee.
Hell, we buy a PC for its value today and all I can do is amortize the clunker for taxes? That's the real bullshit story man.
I'm all for the return of the terminal and death of all this personal hardware conspiracy. Sure, we will need hardware when we don't have a connection, but really, how often do we leave our comfort zones?
USB works for the people looking for a low cost port that works well enough. However there are plenty of situations where USB simply doesn't work well at all especially on other platforms. Just try doing anything real time over USB an see what happens.
USB 2.0, true. USB 3.0, maybe not. 3.0 gets rid of the polling and is fully bidirectional, unlike USB 2.0, which should fix some of the biggest problems USB 2.0 had in that department.
Regardless, 99% of MacBook Air buyers don't know or care what USB's real time performance is.
Not exactly they drop ports when they no longer serve a purpose or have been eclipsed by newer technology. TB fills an important role for Apple as such it won't be replaced anytime soon. C
So ADC, FireWire (on the USB-only, pre-Thunderbolt machines), and ExpressCard served no purpose? What technology were they eclipsed by at the time they were replaced?
Apple and Intel was working together on some level here as Intels development hardware was an Apple Mac Pro.
I've written software using Xcode on a MacBook Pro. Can I list Apple in the credits as co-developer?
Actually TB is at its best on the low end consumer hardware, it gives things like the AIR incredible expansion capabilities and the ability to handle apps beyond what the laptops size would imply.
That's true. And the vast majority of MacBook Air buyers have no idea about those expansion capabilities, don't need them, and don't care about them. Of the few that do know and care, most still don't buy Thunderbolt peripherals, because they can't afford them. The Thunderbolt controller on the MBA is, 99.99% of the time, a dead weight.
That makes a whole lot of sense comparing a passive hub with the capabilities of any of those docks. The two pieces of hardware aren't even in the same ball field. One is hardware for the pee wee leagues and the other suitable for pro users.
Hey, I wasn't the one who was equating Thunderbolt : USB :: USB : ADB.
Your fundamental problem is made obvious right here, Thunderbolt is not designed to compete with USB. It is a fundamental mistake to try to put them into competition with each other. If Apple had such an option of TB they would have deleted the USB ports, instead they have supported USB3 as soon as Intel got its act together.
They didn't really have a choice, since Intel put USB 3.0 ports right on the motherboard. Back in the FireWire vs. USB 2.0 days, when Apple was creating its own motherboards, they tried to delay putting USB 2.0 on as long as possible.
The bottom line is, for most things that Thunderbolt can do, USB 3.0 is good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
Do a little foot work yourself.
That's what I thought. You couldn't find any.
Apple has gotten everything they have wanted out of TB, they won't be dropping it anytime soon.
They've gotten one display model and some adapters to other non-Thunderbolt protocols. Ooh.
So, basically, a computer is a lot more useful for someone who wants do work, and until iDevices can replace the working function of a computer, we won't see the death of it any time soon.
Okay, so… 2010, then.
Originally Posted by Durandal1707
Is this really the best you can do?
I’d have said the same for you three posts ago.
Nothing like USB existed on the market in 1998.
And somehow this excuses morons from not moving to the future now?
Thunderbolt doesn't offer any improvement that translates to a benefit for the average home user.
Thanks for that; when you have any proof, feel free to let us know. Your personal inability to think of any benefit ? “no benefit”.
Someone's having a hard time coming up with cogent arguments, if you're resorting to this.
Yeah, you get one more reply before you forfeit your right to argue. I’ll say it again: Your personal inability to come up with any argument ? my argument is bad.
So maybe try reading the links you post before posting them?
Here we go again with the personal attacks. Classy.
Maybe just stop pretending you’re an idiot, then. Sounds like a better idea, doesn’t it? Then we don’t have to listen to your dreck and the presented arguments on both sides start making sense.
Originally Posted by Durandal1707
Of the few that do know and care, most still don't buy Thunderbolt peripherals, because they can't afford them.
Thanks for pretending that someone buying a $1,200-$2,500 computer can’t afford Thunderbolt peripherals.
The Thunderbolt controller on the MBA is, 99.99% of the time, a dead weight.
[citation needed, but will never be provided, because you don’t have the first clue what you’re on about, nor ever will, it seems]
The bottom line is, for most things that Thunderbolt can do, USB 3.0 is good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
For most things that USB can do, ADB (PS/2) was good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
Coming out of lurkdom for a second time to highlight this. This is what I think-- yes, the junk right now that hints at convergence is just that-- junk. It's clumsy, not well thought out, and a pain to use. But that's not how Apple makes things. I think there is a future for convergence, and if Apple does it, it will be a breath of fresh air compared to what is happening now. All the talk about the 64-bit ARM chip in 5s-- I think this may be the other side to it. That's some serious processing power. The way I see it happening, as quoted above, is that turns into a desktop OS when hooking up to a monitor, and back to iOS when it's not.
Mike Lazaridis was at home on his treadmill and watching television when he first saw the Apple iPhone in early 2007. There were a few things he didn’t understand about the product. So, that summer, he pried one open to look inside and was shocked. It was like Apple had stuffed a Mac computer into a cellphone, he thought. ...“If that thing catches on, we’re competing with a Mac, not a Nokia,” he recalled telling his staff.
What you fail to realize is that the new Mac Pro is already twice as fast as the old one.
The aggregate magnitude of the new Mac Pro performance as compared to the current Mac Pro remains to be seen . It will depend upon the final build and spec options. Preliminary benchmarks have shown up on Geekbench in June and September as recently reported by MacRumours and other media outlets.
Apple on their website states up to 2x faster floating-point performance, up to 2x higher memory bandwidth, over 2x faster GPU performance, and up to 2.5x faster storage performance. To be fair, Apple offers this caveat, "Performance claims are based on technical specifications of preproduction Mac Pro hardware as of June 2013 and are subject to change"'.
The aggregate magnitude of the new Mac Pro performance as compared to the current Mac Pro remains to be seen . It will depend upon the final build and spec options. Preliminary benchmarks have shown up on Geekbench in June and September as recently reported by MacRumours and other media outlets.
Apple on their website states up to 2x faster floating-point performance, up to 2x higher memory bandwidth, over 2x faster GPU performance, and up to 2.5x faster storage performance. To be fair, Apple offers this caveat, "Performance claims are based on technical specifications of preproduction Mac Pro hardware as of June 2013 and are subject to change"'.
It could have been much faster had Apple gone with the previous form factor. The new Mac Pro only has 1 CPU with 12 cores vs 2 CPUs with the possibility of up to 24 cores. Quad Video cards could have been feasible with the extra space gained from removing the optical drives and the addition of dual redundant power supplies and lights out management.
It could have been much faster had Apple gone with the previous form factor. The new Mac Pro only has 1 CPU with 12 cores vs 2 CPUs with the possibility of up to 24 cores. Quad Video cards could have been feasible with the extra space gained from removing the optical drives and the addition of dual redundant power supplies and lights out management.
So go buy one of those and stick with the old way of doing things. When Apple succeeds, you don’t even have to care about it.
The new Mac Pro only has 1 CPU with 12 cores vs 2 CPUs with the possibility of up to 24 cores. Quad Video cards could have been feasible with the extra space gained from removing the optical drives and the addition of dual redundant power supplies and lights out management.
Why is only having 4 GPUs acceptable when you could have 8, why 2 CPUs when you could have 4? People always settle for something just above what Apple offers. Apple used to offer a machine with 4 slots and you couldn't put two high-powered GPUs in it anyway because it had a 300W power limit over the slots. They could have changed this but they build machines based on what people are likely to do with them. If most of their customers used 1 slot then why give everyone 4 and why bundle an oversized PSU for people who don't use it? At least TB ports don't compromise the form factor.
If the reason for multiple slots is for multiple GPUs then they might as well bundle the machine with two so everyone gets two. They could have offered 2 CPUs but they could have offered dual E5-2687Ws last year and didn't. What's the point in having two sockets if they don't offer the highest CPU options?
If the choice was either nothing or the new Mac Pro, the new one is clearly better. If it was between a drop-in upgrade for the old one and the new one, they both have their respective advantages. With the new one, everyone gets dual GPUs, everyone gets PCIe storage, everyone gets a compact enclosure, everyone gets Thunderbolt and 4K display support. With the old one, you'd get SATA storage, you can have 4 slots but you'd get a power limit so it doesn't matter, you only get two GPUs at most anyway and likely no SLI support if you plan to use NVidia. You likely wouldn't get Thunderbolt on top as it complicates things with multiple GPUs.
The old one being updated would have sold in low volumes. The new one will sell in low volumes. It's a low volume market. The new one has had far more press than a refresh would have ever had so it will likely sell better than a refresh.
There's nothing wrong with people fantasising about some $15000 specced up computer but Apple has to take things to market and they have to sell them year after year. Someone who drops a lot of money on a machine has no reason to upgrade regularly and if they do, they buy their own GPUs so Apple gets no money on the upgrades. This way, Apple can better secure their revenue for that line of computers and that's better for the long term. The handful of people who want a 24-core machine with quad or more GPUs and 64GB+ RAM have the option to buy from HP or Dell, same if they want server hardware. Apple is just choosing not to compromise the form factor for everyone to benefit that handful of people because it's not worth it.
There's nothing wrong with people fantasising about some $15000 specced up computer but Apple has to take things to market and they have to sell them year after year. Someone who drops a lot of money on a machine has no reason to upgrade regularly and if they do, they buy their own GPUs so Apple gets no money on the upgrades. This way, Apple can better secure their revenue for that line of computers and that's better for the long term. The handful of people who want a 24-core machine with quad or more GPUs and 64GB+ RAM have the option to buy from HP or Dell, same if they want server hardware. Apple is just choosing not to compromise the form factor for everyone to benefit that handful of people because it's not worth it.
Actually those are the kinds of customers who would have been with HP, Dell, or whatever other oem already. There are use cases that either demand or benefit from insane specs, often running some version of Linux. There's no guarantee you won't see some kind of after-market unofficial upgrades. As for cpus swaps, they won't be any different here than they were with past models aside from the fact that sockets change after ivy bridge e. There are some complaints that are reasonable, in that some configurations would be more expensive with what is available port-wise on the new ones. I'm skeptical whether many of these people would have actually purchased a 24 core machine if one was available at Apple's typical pricing schedule, not that Dell or HP is cheap when it comes to dual workstations. I don't mourn the lack of one simply because I wouldn't have purchased that model anyway. It is funny when people occasionally suggest that cpus will be soldered when no current Xeon EP options support it.
Thanks for pretending that someone buying a $1,200-$2,500 computer can’t afford Thunderbolt peripherals.
Maybe not "unable" but perhaps "unwilling." I just bought a new RAID and as much as I wanted TB I just couldn't justify the cost of a Pegasus when I could get so much more value for money from a USB3 LaCie. TB priced itself out of the market for me.
And somehow this excuses morons from not moving to the future now?
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #2: "People who don't spend $500 on a thing to give you extra USB ports are morons."
Thanks for that; when you have any proof, feel free to let us know. Your personal inability to think of any benefit ? “no benefit”.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #3: "I can't think of any benefit to the average user, but nevertheless the onus is on you to prove a negative. Until then, we just assume that one exists. Somewhere."
Yeah, you get one more reply before you forfeit your right to argue.
Irony.
I’ll say it again: Your personal inability to come up with any argument ? my argument is bad.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #4: Actually making points based on market reality, with actual research to boot, doesn't constitute a valid argument, but "You're dumb" does.
So maybe try reading the links you post before posting them?
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #5: I still don't get what a straw man argument is, apparently, even though you linked me to the definition.
Maybe just stop pretending you’re an idiot, then. Sounds like a better idea, doesn’t it? Then we don’t have to listen to your dreck and the presented arguments on both sides start making sense.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #6: You're an idiot.
Thanks for pretending that someone buying a $1,200-$2,500 computer can’t afford Thunderbolt peripherals.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #7: Someone who just blew their entire discretionary budget on a computer instead of half of it can certainly keep spending even more.
[citation needed, but will never be provided, because you don’t have the first clue what you’re on about, nor ever will, it seems]
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #8: I haven't been reading anything in your entire posts, apparently.
For most things that USB can do, ADB (PS/2) was good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #9: Let me just repeat a vapid statement I made earlier, ignoring that it's already been thoroughly destroyed.
Congratulations. You've written a post with absolutely no content. A truly Zen-like achievement, for sure. There's nothing really to reply to here, so basically, I'm done with this thread. Have a nice day.
Maybe not "unable" but perhaps "unwilling." I just bought a new RAID and as much as I wanted TB I just couldn't justify the cost of a Pegasus when I could get so much more value for money from a USB3 LaCie. TB priced itself out of the market for me.
LaCie's Thunderbolt products are not much more expensive than the USB 3 ones:
12TB USB 3 RAID is $1099, 10TB TB is $1099. The TB one goes up to 785MB/s, the USB 3 one goes to 245MB/s. There's a $100 difference on their dual drives and the TB ones are faster.
Sorry, gonna have to stop your idiocy there. I never said anything of the sort, nor could that be implied from any of the posts already made. In fact, I’ve stated multiple already. You, on the other hand, refuse to even acknowledge that, yes, the responsibility is yours to take five or so seconds to think of something Thunderbolt does better than USB/PCIe.
Actually making points based on market reality, with actual research to boot, doesn't constitute a valid argument
Only because you didn’t.
Someone who just blew their entire discretionary budget on a computer
Sounds stupid, to me. I guess having blown the entire budget they’d be capable of buying PCIe and USB accessor… oh, right, they don’t have any money anymore! My mistake.
…so basically, I’m done with this thread.
Good; thanks for giving up your pointless tirade against reality.
The handful of people who want a 24-core machine with quad or more GPUs and 64GB+ RAM have the option to buy from HP or Dell, same if they want server hardware. Apple is just choosing not to compromise the form factor for everyone to benefit that handful of people because it's not worth it.
The problem with going with HP or Dell is not being able to run Mac OS X legally. The h4ckintosh route is possible but you wont get much support.
So go buy one of those and stick with the old way of doing things. When Apple succeeds, you don’t even have to care about it.
Old really? How so? The HP Z820 runs newer faster processors, can use all the latest NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, SSD, Thunderbolt 2 etc... and hold more of them!
Old really? How so? The HP Z820 runs newer faster processors, can use all the latest NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, SSD, Thunderbolt 2 etc... and hold more of them!
Please, at the VERY least, respond to what I’m saying, not what you want to pretend I’m saying.
12TB USB 3 RAID is $1099, 10TB TB is $1099. The TB one goes up to 785MB/s, the USB 3 one goes to 245MB/s. There's a $100 difference on their dual drives and the TB ones are faster.
Good point, but there's a reason LaCie's TB RAIDs are cheaper -- no multimode controller. They're RAID 0 only, no RAID10 or any other redundant form. According to the reply I got from an inquiry to LaCie, their TB RAIDs were designed to be purely speed screamers.
Old like connecting remotely via dumb terminals to huge powerful servers that do all the processing and rendering? Oh wait, I just described cloud computing but wait isn't that the future?
Why wait? The future is now. Apple isn't releasing any new hardware that others don't already have. If anything they are giving you less and claiming it to be innovative because you expand with wires externally versus internally.
Thats not innovative. Thats called unnecessary clutter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Please, at the VERY least, respond to what I’m saying, not what you want to pretend I’m saying.
[Insert Henry Ford quote that every intelligent person already knows here]
Any customer can have a Mac Pro any colour that he wants so long as it is black? ;-)
The quote, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.", can be found in the book 'My Life and Work' written by Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther.
A popular quote often attributed to Henry Ford, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.”, has never been sourced to any primary material.
Comments
Once wireless bandwidth is reliable and plentiful, by do we need so much hardware? I think we'll be happy with mainframes. I think mainframes will Mak a comeback. Industrialized computing rather than our cottage industry computing.
Reliability, speed, uptime all becomes moot. We buy computers that slowly and surely become less useful as necessary software outpaces our computers. Not that MS Word has really become more useful in 20 years.
Why buy junk and be wasteful, we should be paying for what we use and pay a recurring fee.
Hell, we buy a PC for its value today and all I can do is amortize the clunker for taxes? That's the real bullshit story man.
I'm all for the return of the terminal and death of all this personal hardware conspiracy. Sure, we will need hardware when we don't have a connection, but really, how often do we leave our comfort zones?
"... reclined on a retail inventory shelf whispering to as-yet unconvinced buyers how super cheap they are and how they’re ready to do anything ..."
Ooooh! Dirty!
Regardless, 99% of MacBook Air buyers don't know or care what USB's real time performance is.
http://amzn.to/1g13Wsp
So ADC, FireWire (on the USB-only, pre-Thunderbolt machines), and ExpressCard served no purpose? What technology were they eclipsed by at the time they were replaced?
I've written software using Xcode on a MacBook Pro. Can I list Apple in the credits as co-developer?
That's true. And the vast majority of MacBook Air buyers have no idea about those expansion capabilities, don't need them, and don't care about them. Of the few that do know and care, most still don't buy Thunderbolt peripherals, because they can't afford them. The Thunderbolt controller on the MBA is, 99.99% of the time, a dead weight.
Hey, I wasn't the one who was equating Thunderbolt : USB :: USB : ADB.
They didn't really have a choice, since Intel put USB 3.0 ports right on the motherboard. Back in the FireWire vs. USB 2.0 days, when Apple was creating its own motherboards, they tried to delay putting USB 2.0 on as long as possible.
The bottom line is, for most things that Thunderbolt can do, USB 3.0 is good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
They've gotten one display model and some adapters to other non-Thunderbolt protocols. Ooh.
Okay, so… 2010, then.
I’d have said the same for you three posts ago.
And somehow this excuses morons from not moving to the future now?
Thanks for that; when you have any proof, feel free to let us know. Your personal inability to think of any benefit ? “no benefit”.
Yeah, you get one more reply before you forfeit your right to argue. I’ll say it again: Your personal inability to come up with any argument ? my argument is bad.
So maybe try reading the links you post before posting them?
Maybe just stop pretending you’re an idiot, then. Sounds like a better idea, doesn’t it? Then we don’t have to listen to your dreck and the presented arguments on both sides start making sense.
Thanks for pretending that someone buying a $1,200-$2,500 computer can’t afford Thunderbolt peripherals.
[citation needed, but will never be provided, because you don’t have the first clue what you’re on about, nor ever will, it seems]
For most things that USB can do, ADB (PS/2) was good enough. The exceptions are all tiny niches.
Coming out of lurkdom for a second time to highlight this. This is what I think-- yes, the junk right now that hints at convergence is just that-- junk. It's clumsy, not well thought out, and a pain to use. But that's not how Apple makes things. I think there is a future for convergence, and if Apple does it, it will be a breath of fresh air compared to what is happening now. All the talk about the 64-bit ARM chip in 5s-- I think this may be the other side to it. That's some serious processing power. The way I see it happening, as quoted above, is that turns into a desktop OS when hooking up to a monitor, and back to iOS when it's not.
From The Globe and Mail article, 'Inside the fall of BlackBerry: How the smartphone inventor failed to adapt':
Mike Lazaridis was at home on his treadmill and watching television when he first saw the Apple iPhone in early 2007. There were a few things he didn’t understand about the product. So, that summer, he pried one open to look inside and was shocked. It was like Apple had stuffed a Mac computer into a cellphone, he thought. ...“If that thing catches on, we’re competing with a Mac, not a Nokia,” he recalled telling his staff.
Quote:
What you fail to realize is that the new Mac Pro is already twice as fast as the old one.
The aggregate magnitude of the new Mac Pro performance as compared to the current Mac Pro remains to be seen . It will depend upon the final build and spec options. Preliminary benchmarks have shown up on Geekbench in June and September as recently reported by MacRumours and other media outlets.
Apple on their website states up to 2x faster floating-point performance, up to 2x higher memory bandwidth, over 2x faster GPU performance, and up to 2.5x faster storage performance. To be fair, Apple offers this caveat, "Performance claims are based on technical specifications of preproduction Mac Pro hardware as of June 2013 and are subject to change"'.
The aggregate magnitude of the new Mac Pro performance as compared to the current Mac Pro remains to be seen . It will depend upon the final build and spec options. Preliminary benchmarks have shown up on Geekbench in June and September as recently reported by MacRumours and other media outlets.
Apple on their website states up to 2x faster floating-point performance, up to 2x higher memory bandwidth, over 2x faster GPU performance, and up to 2.5x faster storage performance. To be fair, Apple offers this caveat, "Performance claims are based on technical specifications of preproduction Mac Pro hardware as of June 2013 and are subject to change"'.
It could have been much faster had Apple gone with the previous form factor. The new Mac Pro only has 1 CPU with 12 cores vs 2 CPUs with the possibility of up to 24 cores. Quad Video cards could have been feasible with the extra space gained from removing the optical drives and the addition of dual redundant power supplies and lights out management.
It could have been much faster had Apple gone with the previous form factor. The new Mac Pro only has 1 CPU with 12 cores vs 2 CPUs with the possibility of up to 24 cores. Quad Video cards could have been feasible with the extra space gained from removing the optical drives and the addition of dual redundant power supplies and lights out management.
So go buy one of those and stick with the old way of doing things. When Apple succeeds, you don’t even have to care about it.
Why is only having 4 GPUs acceptable when you could have 8, why 2 CPUs when you could have 4? People always settle for something just above what Apple offers. Apple used to offer a machine with 4 slots and you couldn't put two high-powered GPUs in it anyway because it had a 300W power limit over the slots. They could have changed this but they build machines based on what people are likely to do with them. If most of their customers used 1 slot then why give everyone 4 and why bundle an oversized PSU for people who don't use it? At least TB ports don't compromise the form factor.
If the reason for multiple slots is for multiple GPUs then they might as well bundle the machine with two so everyone gets two. They could have offered 2 CPUs but they could have offered dual E5-2687Ws last year and didn't. What's the point in having two sockets if they don't offer the highest CPU options?
If the choice was either nothing or the new Mac Pro, the new one is clearly better. If it was between a drop-in upgrade for the old one and the new one, they both have their respective advantages. With the new one, everyone gets dual GPUs, everyone gets PCIe storage, everyone gets a compact enclosure, everyone gets Thunderbolt and 4K display support. With the old one, you'd get SATA storage, you can have 4 slots but you'd get a power limit so it doesn't matter, you only get two GPUs at most anyway and likely no SLI support if you plan to use NVidia. You likely wouldn't get Thunderbolt on top as it complicates things with multiple GPUs.
The old one being updated would have sold in low volumes. The new one will sell in low volumes. It's a low volume market. The new one has had far more press than a refresh would have ever had so it will likely sell better than a refresh.
There's nothing wrong with people fantasising about some $15000 specced up computer but Apple has to take things to market and they have to sell them year after year. Someone who drops a lot of money on a machine has no reason to upgrade regularly and if they do, they buy their own GPUs so Apple gets no money on the upgrades. This way, Apple can better secure their revenue for that line of computers and that's better for the long term. The handful of people who want a 24-core machine with quad or more GPUs and 64GB+ RAM have the option to buy from HP or Dell, same if they want server hardware. Apple is just choosing not to compromise the form factor for everyone to benefit that handful of people because it's not worth it.
There's nothing wrong with people fantasising about some $15000 specced up computer but Apple has to take things to market and they have to sell them year after year. Someone who drops a lot of money on a machine has no reason to upgrade regularly and if they do, they buy their own GPUs so Apple gets no money on the upgrades. This way, Apple can better secure their revenue for that line of computers and that's better for the long term. The handful of people who want a 24-core machine with quad or more GPUs and 64GB+ RAM have the option to buy from HP or Dell, same if they want server hardware. Apple is just choosing not to compromise the form factor for everyone to benefit that handful of people because it's not worth it.
Actually those are the kinds of customers who would have been with HP, Dell, or whatever other oem already. There are use cases that either demand or benefit from insane specs, often running some version of Linux. There's no guarantee you won't see some kind of after-market unofficial upgrades. As for cpus swaps, they won't be any different here than they were with past models aside from the fact that sockets change after ivy bridge e. There are some complaints that are reasonable, in that some configurations would be more expensive with what is available port-wise on the new ones. I'm skeptical whether many of these people would have actually purchased a 24 core machine if one was available at Apple's typical pricing schedule, not that Dell or HP is cheap when it comes to dual workstations. I don't mourn the lack of one simply because I wouldn't have purchased that model anyway. It is funny when people occasionally suggest that cpus will be soldered when no current Xeon EP options support it.
Thanks for pretending that someone buying a $1,200-$2,500 computer can’t afford Thunderbolt peripherals.
Maybe not "unable" but perhaps "unwilling." I just bought a new RAID and as much as I wanted TB I just couldn't justify the cost of a Pegasus when I could get so much more value for money from a USB3 LaCie. TB priced itself out of the market for me.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #2: "People who don't spend $500 on a thing to give you extra USB ports are morons."
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #3: "I can't think of any benefit to the average user, but nevertheless the onus is on you to prove a negative. Until then, we just assume that one exists. Somewhere."
Irony.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #4: Actually making points based on market reality, with actual research to boot, doesn't constitute a valid argument, but "You're dumb" does.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #5: I still don't get what a straw man argument is, apparently, even though you linked me to the definition.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #6: You're an idiot.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #7: Someone who just blew their entire discretionary budget on a computer instead of half of it can certainly keep spending even more.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #8: I haven't been reading anything in your entire posts, apparently.
Highly Intellectual Tallest Skil Point #9: Let me just repeat a vapid statement I made earlier, ignoring that it's already been thoroughly destroyed.
Congratulations. You've written a post with absolutely no content. A truly Zen-like achievement, for sure. There's nothing really to reply to here, so basically, I'm done with this thread. Have a nice day.
LaCie's Thunderbolt products are not much more expensive than the USB 3 ones:
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10607
12TB USB 3 RAID is $1099, 10TB TB is $1099. The TB one goes up to 785MB/s, the USB 3 one goes to 245MB/s. There's a $100 difference on their dual drives and the TB ones are faster.
Sorry, gonna have to stop your idiocy there. I never said anything of the sort, nor could that be implied from any of the posts already made. In fact, I’ve stated multiple already. You, on the other hand, refuse to even acknowledge that, yes, the responsibility is yours to take five or so seconds to think of something Thunderbolt does better than USB/PCIe.
Only because you didn’t.
Sounds stupid, to me. I guess having blown the entire budget they’d be capable of buying PCIe and USB accessor… oh, right, they don’t have any money anymore! My mistake.
Good; thanks for giving up your pointless tirade against reality.
The problem with going with HP or Dell is not being able to run Mac OS X legally. The h4ckintosh route is possible but you wont get much support.
So go buy one of those and stick with the old way of doing things. When Apple succeeds, you don’t even have to care about it.
Old really? How so? The HP Z820 runs newer faster processors, can use all the latest NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, SSD, Thunderbolt 2 etc... and hold more of them!
The only problem is that the OS is not Mac OS X.
Hell even Woz loves them: http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac-creative/news/?newsid=3468413
Old really? How so? The HP Z820 runs newer faster processors, can use all the latest NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, SSD, Thunderbolt 2 etc... and hold more of them!
Please, at the VERY least, respond to what I’m saying, not what you want to pretend I’m saying.
LaCie's Thunderbolt products are not much more expensive than the USB 3 ones:
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10607
12TB USB 3 RAID is $1099, 10TB TB is $1099. The TB one goes up to 785MB/s, the USB 3 one goes to 245MB/s. There's a $100 difference on their dual drives and the TB ones are faster.
Good point, but there's a reason LaCie's TB RAIDs are cheaper -- no multimode controller. They're RAID 0 only, no RAID10 or any other redundant form. According to the reply I got from an inquiry to LaCie, their TB RAIDs were designed to be purely speed screamers.
Old like connecting remotely via dumb terminals to huge powerful servers that do all the processing and rendering? Oh wait, I just described cloud computing but wait isn't that the future?
Why wait? The future is now. Apple isn't releasing any new hardware that others don't already have. If anything they are giving you less and claiming it to be innovative because you expand with wires externally versus internally.
Thats not innovative. Thats called unnecessary clutter.
Please, at the VERY least, respond to what I’m saying, not what you want to pretend I’m saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by z3r0
Pro's didn't ask for a smaller case.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
[Insert Henry Ford quote that every intelligent person already knows here]
Any customer can have a Mac Pro any colour that he wants so long as it is black? ;-)
The quote, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.", can be found in the book 'My Life and Work' written by Henry Ford and Samuel Crowther.
A popular quote often attributed to Henry Ford, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, they’d have asked for a faster horse.”, has never been sourced to any primary material.