So I guess even today it might be a good thing to have more than 4GB of RAM (though I would really like to know who on this forum has a Mac with >4GB of RAM?).
Though with Maya you wouldn't really run many apps next to it. Photoshop perhaps and QuickTime. That'll be it. But even the big PS files you would prepare beforehand. And since Maya 6 has its own web browser built-in you don't need to run Safari anymore.
Quote:
As for "lightning fast graphics card" - in what concrete way is FireGL hardware faster than the corresponding consumer hardware?
I haven't said anything about lightning fast hardware. I am fully aware that the pro graphics cards are almost (if not) identical in hardware to consumer cards. It's the highly optimized drivers that make them faster and better. It's a hardware/software package deal.
But that's the same for Maya itself. Theoretically Maya should be fastest on the Mac, but real world tests suggest it actually runs half the speed than on an Opteron. Why? Because that's the clientele Alias is tweaking Maya for, to eek out every last bit of performance. They don't do that with their Mac version yet.
So let's not kid ourselves, Maya is not optimized for the G5. To be fair though, it is getting better with every new version of Maya.
Quote:
Maya apparently cripples itself if it detects a consumer card, because (on the PC side) that means that it can't count on a robust OpenGL implementation.
Not 'apparently', that is the case. Consumer card drivers are optimized for gaming, i.e. speed. You don't need that (normally) with content creation. But what you do need is accuracy of the renderd image, and that's what the consumer card drivers don't provide.
But even pro cards can vary vastly in that area. If you're interested to learn more look at this comparison on 3DLabs' website. Sure that's a marketing doc (and a bit dated too), but gives you a good idea of what better accuracy is all about.
Quote:
They're shipping graphics hardware that's about 98% there, and an OpenGL implementation that is there.
I think you are wrong here. If you look at the Mac issues with hardware rendering (Maya 6 on OS X 10.3) you will see that "Line smoothing does not work", "Shadows are not rendered" and "Lights with shadows enabled do not render". All pretty substantial flaws, bordering on making hardware rendering useless. Unfortunately OpenGL on the Mac is not there yet. At least not in a way that Maya can use.
Quote:
Not to mention that the change I'm advocating is politically sensitive (to ATi and nVIDIA).
That's a very good point! And difficult to overcome. Perhaps Apple should not release those drivers themselves, but work together with the pro card manufacturers to get pro drivers out. From Maya's point of view NVidia's cards work better than ATI's so if Apple can only work with one provider NVidia would be the preferred choice.
Apple has not lost touch with reality. They just have better market data then the rest of us.
Who needs more then 500 gigs inside of their computer? No one. Anybody who needs more then 500 gigs is going to have an external RAID array, an XSERVE RAID, or something similar because anybody who needs more then 500 gigs also needs a faster data throughput, more then SATA can cut.
Maybe Apple discovered that updating their line 3 times each year actually hurt sales because small business buyers felt uncomfortable spending a premium on a Mac and only having a top of the line workstation for 4 months.
Who needs more then 500 gigs inside of their computer?
It's not about storage capacity, it's about having cheap fast HD storage (via RAID 0) and internal HDs for backups.
I agree, at this time there aren't many who need 500+GB storage.
But I know quite a few people who would love to have 3 cheap 80GB drives internally: one to boot from and one for data in a RAID 0 (striped) array.
And if the PowerMac G5 had 4 internal bays one could get an additional 160GB drive to backup these drives: 4 HDs, total net storage 320GB, 80+80 for the OS and data and 160 for backups. All neatly internally, all user-servicable/upgradable.
I prefer this to external boxes with yet more cables and additional power plugs. And it's cheaper too. What is wrong with that?
Do I need to be worried? Most don't care about the missed 3GHz target. Not the end of the world, shit happens. I'm sure Steve really thought it would be achievable. (A victim of his own Reality Distortion Field?).
But most do care that Apple did not improve the feature mix .
That is absolute BULLSHIT. Of course it's all about the 3GHZ chips. Apple has NEVER EVER shipped cutting edge graphics cards or huge hard drives with their machines. And people complaining about the amount of ram Apple ships!?!? COMON! How long has this been happening for? YEARS! Remember how long we were stuck with the 16 mb ATI Rage 128 or whatever the hell it was?
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
i wonder what the hell that makes you because you sure as hell look a lot more pathetic than anyone else here
I don't use Maya, wouldn't have a clue how to use it. I don't run any sort of Oracle database or anyting like that. I could easily use 500GB of storage internally. Let's see... 600+CDs ripped lossless. Maybe start ripping my DVD collection as well. That is just to start.
Yes, you can never have too much RAM, and you can never have too much HD space. What about in 4 years when you are on your next machine and you take this one home from work to do basic server duty? What about the guy who wants to archive all his home videos of his children at high quality.
I hate it when someone says "nobody needs <put whatever statistic here>..." It is somewhat arrogant to say and never is right. Especially when it applies to something so patently simple like HD bays which Apple should have included in their monster case.
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
No need to call anyone a 'complete moron'...
I hear what you're saying. But do you really think that just because Apple did this for years they are justified to continue to do so? How convenient.
We all love our Macs and care about Apple, otherwise we wouldn't be in this forum. Therefore of course we aspire for Apple to improve and get better and better. The PowerMac G5 was a fantastic step forward from the bus-hampered G4. Not just the CPU the whole new case design. Yet all of a sudden the momentum seems lost. I am certain that IBM and Apple are doing their very best to get the G5 to the promised 3GHz. And if it cannot be done due to problems with the new 90nm process, I'm sure that's OK with most. It certainly is with me.
However, it would have been a nice gesture by Apple to throw in some other goodies with this upgrade instead. The seeming complacency is what is disappointing.
However, it would have been a nice gesture by Apple to throw in some other goodies with this upgrade instead. The seeming complacency is what is disappointing.
Can't argue with that.
Please explain to me how last year when the G5 was released everyone went nuts. No one cared that the base and middle models only had one processor, no one cared they only had limited ram, and no one cared about 64 mb graphics cards.
Today, it is dual across the entire line, 8x dvd burners, and a better graphics card is $50 for the bottom 2 models. If your not impressed with the update ... yeah fine, I wouldn't call it impressive. But calling it this huge f*ckup by Apple and a slap in the face to the mac faithful would be consistent with the behaviour of a Moron. I don't like calling people morons, but I'm sorry, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
REPLACEMENT G5 AIR BAFFLE. This improved baffle allows mounting of two additional drives in the G5. It is constructed from mirror aluminum and preserves the original internal air flow of the G5. It also serves as an extraordinary heat sink for the two additional drives, which are mounted to the new air baffle.
ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY. G5Jam allows up to 1 Terabyte of storage to be mounted inside the G5.
SUPPORTS OS X SOFT RAID. This provides performance in excess of 200MB/sec. Drives may also be configured individually.
SUPPORTS HD EDITING. Has been tested with 1080i 10bit under Final Cut Pro in a variety of demanding edits. (Will not support 1080i across the entire disk map ? performance does degrade as written cylinder count increases.)
INCLUDES SATA ADAPTER CARD. May be installed in any open PCI slot within the G5.
USES MINIMAL INTERNAL SPACE. G5Jam occupies space which normally supports full length PCI cards in slots 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, PCI Slots 1, 2, and 3 are restricted to short length cards. Slot 4 may be a full length card.
Things could be better in PowerMac world but things could be a lot worse too! All in all the Pro line up, software and hardware (including raid, etc) is very, very, very sweet!.
The G5 towers are still really nice machines and I will be getting a second one soon!
Apple has NEVER EVER shipped cutting edge graphics cards or huge hard drives with their machines.
When the Rev B PowerMac G4s were introduced (Q1 in 2000) Apple offered 100+ GB of internal HD storage as a BTO option via 3x 36GB HDs, which at the time was huge. And the top of the line PowerMac G4 was equipped with a 27GB HD, the second biggest size available at the time.
Apple could have included a 200MB HD with their top of the line PowerMac G5. Or 10000 and 15000rpm drives as BTO options. Would have been nice.
The current 15" and 17" PowerBooks were among the very first notebooks on the market with the (then) truly cutting edge ATI Mobility Radeon 9700.
Please explain to me how last year when the G5 was released everyone went nuts. No one cared that the base and middle models only had one processor, no one cared they only had limited ram, and no one cared about 64 mb graphics cards.
Two reasons:
a) Apple at that point improved the PowerMac in so many ways:
- a lot faster CPU
- vastly faster bus
- USB 2
- FireWire 800
- 8x AGP
- SerialATA
- PC3200 RAM
- digital audio
- PCI-X
- clever cooling design with the promise of more quiet operation
- new aluminium design
b) In light of all the above we were more than willing to cut Apple some slack on this Rev A design. Things like the step backward on number of HD and CD drive bays, the limited RAM and graphics card.
We were just hoping that these remaining issues would be dealt with in Rev B.
We were just hoping that these 'remaining' issues would be dealt with in Rev B
Perhaps a bit too optimistic. Adding more SATA channels would require modification of the controller I believe and adding more bays could could other significant changes. There's hope that Apple may add the bays in the future however I think they'll err on the side of keeping themal issues at bay.
Xserve RAID is a fantastic piece of hardware, don't get me wrong.
But if you think about it, any setup ends up being an oxymoron, it's either overkill or half-baked.
Overkill:
If for Final Cut Pro all you want is a fast internal boot drive and a fast RAID 0 or RAID 3 for data then all you need is 3 internal HD bays. Xserve RAID is overkill for this kind of setup.
Internal HDs are user-upgradable. Most external FireWire 800 drives are not, making it difficult to swap/upgrade drives. The few with swappable drive bays are very expensive. Again overkill.
So basically your one option is an internal RAID and booting off an external FW 800 drive. Is that a professional setup? Apart from the fact, again, that external FW 800 drives are more expensive than internal SATA drives.
It almost seems like a conspiracy between Apple and FW 800 drive manufacturers...
Half-baked:
If you really are serious about it and really have the cash to get an Xserve RAID for your video editing or 3D workstation, the G5 still loses out.
At that point, where the Xserve RAID makes sense, users also expect error correcting code RAM as well as Pro graphic cards. Neither is available for the PowerMac G5.
So why bother investing in an Xserve RAID in the hopes of getting a 'high-end' setup? It isn't and it won't be.
Speaking of half-baked, you should have checked the tech specs on the current Xserves:
"The 1U (1.75-inch) Xserve comes with your choice of single or dual 2.0GHz G5 processors running at speeds of up to 30 gigaflops, a 1.0GHz frontside bus per processor for up to 8GBps throughput, two full-length 64-bit, PCI-X slots for up to 533MB/s throughput, and up to 8GB of 400MHz RAM with Error Correction Code (ECC)."
Xserve comes with [...] RAM with Error Correction Code (ECC)
I know! That's why I'm so disappointed that Apple didn't add it to their PowerMac G5 Rev B. Apple has the technology and chip set necessary to supports ECC! So why not use it?
Or are you suggesting people should start buying Xserves instead of PowerMacs? Xserves are huge and very noisy. Not something you easily put underneath your desk (even though there are stands for it). I don't know about you, but I don't want an Xserve under my desk.
Of course we could put it in a noise cancellation box, or in a room next door and use it with extra long monitor and keyboard extension cables. But neither seems very practical.
It's not about storage capacity, it's about having cheap fast HD storage (via RAID 0) and internal HDs for backups.
I agree, at this time there aren't many who need 500+GB storage.
But I know quite a few people who would love to have 3 cheap 80GB drives internally: one to boot from and one for data in a RAID 0 (striped) array.
And if the PowerMac G5 had 4 internal bays one could get an additional 160GB drive to backup these drives: 4 HDs, total net storage 320GB, 80+80 for the OS and data and 160 for backups. All neatly internally, all user-servicable/upgradable.
I prefer this to external boxes with yet more cables and additional power plugs. And it's cheaper too. What is wrong with that?
This sounds like the sort of "lone ranger" pro or prosumer arrangement to me - and, again, my point has been that maybe this is a minority market. Backing up to an internal hard drive is provisional at best (although, if you're actually depending on a RAID 0, a fast, quick backup might not be a bad idea...). But if you're in a shop — where, I believe, the bulk of Apple's video pros will be found — this kind of solution looks fussy and unreliable next to a SAN with a backup to tape. That's why SANs have taken off in the last few years. Once installed, they're efficient, reliable, easy to maintain, easy to back up, and cost-effective. A SAN, server(s) and Gig-E switches has an up-front cost, but if you're a pro then by definition you're using your machines to make money, and it's a matter of routine to finance purchases that will help you make more money, or save you money over time.
Deluding themselves? Almost certainly. It's one of the things they do best.
However, what I'm more concerned about is the thread title. Couldn't a trusty mod or admin (Kickaha, Amorph I'm looking at you) change it to either "Is Apple deluding itself" or "Are Apple deluding themselves". Pleeeeeease.
It's driving me nuts. Besides there are standards to maintain.
As for "lightning fast graphics card" - in what concrete way is FireGL hardware faster than the corresponding consumer hardware?
At least on the Nvidia side, the pro graphics cards have more geometry pipelines, more T&L pipelines, and hardware overlay plane support. I'm not that familiar with ATI, unfortunately.
Deluding themselves? Almost certainly. It's one of the things they do best.
However, what I'm more concerned about is the thread title. Couldn't a trusty mod or admin (Kickaha, Amorph I'm looking at you) change it to either "Is Apple deluding itself" or "Are Apple deluding themselves". Pleeeeeease.
It's driving me nuts. Besides there are standards to maintain.
I dunno, it's kind of fun to drive you nuts.
Hope you don't mind, I split the difference out of deference to our British brethren... see, we treat companies as singular on this side of the pond, they treat them as plural. Wouldn't want to offend anyone...
Comments
So I guess even today it might be a good thing to have more than 4GB of RAM (though I would really like to know who on this forum has a Mac with >4GB of RAM?).
Though with Maya you wouldn't really run many apps next to it. Photoshop perhaps and QuickTime. That'll be it. But even the big PS files you would prepare beforehand. And since Maya 6 has its own web browser built-in you don't need to run Safari anymore.
As for "lightning fast graphics card" - in what concrete way is FireGL hardware faster than the corresponding consumer hardware?
I haven't said anything about lightning fast hardware. I am fully aware that the pro graphics cards are almost (if not) identical in hardware to consumer cards. It's the highly optimized drivers that make them faster and better. It's a hardware/software package deal.
But that's the same for Maya itself. Theoretically Maya should be fastest on the Mac, but real world tests suggest it actually runs half the speed than on an Opteron. Why? Because that's the clientele Alias is tweaking Maya for, to eek out every last bit of performance. They don't do that with their Mac version yet.
So let's not kid ourselves, Maya is not optimized for the G5. To be fair though, it is getting better with every new version of Maya.
Maya apparently cripples itself if it detects a consumer card, because (on the PC side) that means that it can't count on a robust OpenGL implementation.
Not 'apparently', that is the case. Consumer card drivers are optimized for gaming, i.e. speed. You don't need that (normally) with content creation. But what you do need is accuracy of the renderd image, and that's what the consumer card drivers don't provide.
But even pro cards can vary vastly in that area. If you're interested to learn more look at this comparison on 3DLabs' website. Sure that's a marketing doc (and a bit dated too), but gives you a good idea of what better accuracy is all about.
They're shipping graphics hardware that's about 98% there, and an OpenGL implementation that is there.
I think you are wrong here. If you look at the Mac issues with hardware rendering (Maya 6 on OS X 10.3) you will see that "Line smoothing does not work", "Shadows are not rendered" and "Lights with shadows enabled do not render". All pretty substantial flaws, bordering on making hardware rendering useless. Unfortunately OpenGL on the Mac is not there yet. At least not in a way that Maya can use.
Not to mention that the change I'm advocating is politically sensitive (to ATi and nVIDIA).
That's a very good point! And difficult to overcome. Perhaps Apple should not release those drivers themselves, but work together with the pro card manufacturers to get pro drivers out. From Maya's point of view NVidia's cards work better than ATI's so if Apple can only work with one provider NVidia would be the preferred choice.
Who needs more then 500 gigs inside of their computer? No one. Anybody who needs more then 500 gigs is going to have an external RAID array, an XSERVE RAID, or something similar because anybody who needs more then 500 gigs also needs a faster data throughput, more then SATA can cut.
Maybe Apple discovered that updating their line 3 times each year actually hurt sales because small business buyers felt uncomfortable spending a premium on a Mac and only having a top of the line workstation for 4 months.
Who needs more then 500 gigs inside of their computer?
It's not about storage capacity, it's about having cheap fast HD storage (via RAID 0) and internal HDs for backups.
I agree, at this time there aren't many who need 500+GB storage.
But I know quite a few people who would love to have 3 cheap 80GB drives internally: one to boot from and one for data in a RAID 0 (striped) array.
And if the PowerMac G5 had 4 internal bays one could get an additional 160GB drive to backup these drives: 4 HDs, total net storage 320GB, 80+80 for the OS and data and 160 for backups. All neatly internally, all user-servicable/upgradable.
I prefer this to external boxes with yet more cables and additional power plugs. And it's cheaper too. What is wrong with that?
Originally posted by hobBIT
Do I need to be worried? Most don't care about the missed 3GHz target. Not the end of the world, shit happens. I'm sure Steve really thought it would be achievable. (A victim of his own Reality Distortion Field?).
But most do care that Apple did not improve the feature mix .
That is absolute BULLSHIT. Of course it's all about the 3GHZ chips. Apple has NEVER EVER shipped cutting edge graphics cards or huge hard drives with their machines. And people complaining about the amount of ram Apple ships!?!? COMON! How long has this been happening for? YEARS! Remember how long we were stuck with the 16 mb ATI Rage 128 or whatever the hell it was?
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
i wonder what the hell that makes you because you sure as hell look a lot more pathetic than anyone else here
Originally posted by applenut
i wonder what the hell that makes you because you sure as hell look a lot more pathetic than anyone else here
Clearly, it makes me right, because since you couldn't shoot down my argument, all you could do was try and insult me - if you could call that trying.
Yes, you can never have too much RAM, and you can never have too much HD space. What about in 4 years when you are on your next machine and you take this one home from work to do basic server duty? What about the guy who wants to archive all his home videos of his children at high quality.
I hate it when someone says "nobody needs <put whatever statistic here>..." It is somewhat arrogant to say and never is right. Especially when it applies to something so patently simple like HD bays which Apple should have included in their monster case.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I mean ... those who are crying bloody murder are either complete morons or are so new to the platform, that they have no idea what a bad update even looks like.
No need to call anyone a 'complete moron'...
I hear what you're saying. But do you really think that just because Apple did this for years they are justified to continue to do so? How convenient.
We all love our Macs and care about Apple, otherwise we wouldn't be in this forum. Therefore of course we aspire for Apple to improve and get better and better. The PowerMac G5 was a fantastic step forward from the bus-hampered G4. Not just the CPU the whole new case design. Yet all of a sudden the momentum seems lost. I am certain that IBM and Apple are doing their very best to get the G5 to the promised 3GHz. And if it cannot be done due to problems with the new 90nm process, I'm sure that's OK with most. It certainly is with me.
However, it would have been a nice gesture by Apple to throw in some other goodies with this upgrade instead. The seeming complacency is what is disappointing.
Originally posted by hobBIT
No need to call anyone a 'complete moron'...
Agreed. Cool gut, applenut, you're one post away from a timeout. Chill.
Originally posted by hobBIT
However, it would have been a nice gesture by Apple to throw in some other goodies with this upgrade instead. The seeming complacency is what is disappointing.
Can't argue with that.
Please explain to me how last year when the G5 was released everyone went nuts. No one cared that the base and middle models only had one processor, no one cared they only had limited ram, and no one cared about 64 mb graphics cards.
Today, it is dual across the entire line, 8x dvd burners, and a better graphics card is $50 for the bottom 2 models. If your not impressed with the update ... yeah fine, I wouldn't call it impressive. But calling it this huge f*ckup by Apple and a slap in the face to the mac faithful would be consistent with the behaviour of a Moron. I don't like calling people morons, but I'm sorry, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
Barefeats has posted a great review of G5Jam. Click here to read it!
REPLACEMENT G5 AIR BAFFLE. This improved baffle allows mounting of two additional drives in the G5. It is constructed from mirror aluminum and preserves the original internal air flow of the G5. It also serves as an extraordinary heat sink for the two additional drives, which are mounted to the new air baffle.
ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY. G5Jam allows up to 1 Terabyte of storage to be mounted inside the G5.
SUPPORTS OS X SOFT RAID. This provides performance in excess of 200MB/sec. Drives may also be configured individually.
SUPPORTS HD EDITING. Has been tested with 1080i 10bit under Final Cut Pro in a variety of demanding edits. (Will not support 1080i across the entire disk map ? performance does degrade as written cylinder count increases.)
INCLUDES SATA ADAPTER CARD. May be installed in any open PCI slot within the G5.
USES MINIMAL INTERNAL SPACE. G5Jam occupies space which normally supports full length PCI cards in slots 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, PCI Slots 1, 2, and 3 are restricted to short length cards. Slot 4 may be a full length card.
Things could be better in PowerMac world but things could be a lot worse too! All in all the Pro line up, software and hardware (including raid, etc) is very, very, very sweet!.
The G5 towers are still really nice machines and I will be getting a second one soon!
Originally posted by the cool gut
Apple has NEVER EVER shipped cutting edge graphics cards or huge hard drives with their machines.
When the Rev B PowerMac G4s were introduced (Q1 in 2000) Apple offered 100+ GB of internal HD storage as a BTO option via 3x 36GB HDs, which at the time was huge. And the top of the line PowerMac G4 was equipped with a 27GB HD, the second biggest size available at the time.
Apple could have included a 200MB HD with their top of the line PowerMac G5. Or 10000 and 15000rpm drives as BTO options. Would have been nice.
The current 15" and 17" PowerBooks were among the very first notebooks on the market with the (then) truly cutting edge ATI Mobility Radeon 9700.
But maybe you meant desktop systems only.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Please explain to me how last year when the G5 was released everyone went nuts. No one cared that the base and middle models only had one processor, no one cared they only had limited ram, and no one cared about 64 mb graphics cards.
Two reasons:
a) Apple at that point improved the PowerMac in so many ways:
- a lot faster CPU
- vastly faster bus
- USB 2
- FireWire 800
- 8x AGP
- SerialATA
- PC3200 RAM
- digital audio
- PCI-X
- clever cooling design with the promise of more quiet operation
- new aluminium design
b) In light of all the above we were more than willing to cut Apple some slack on this Rev A design. Things like the step backward on number of HD and CD drive bays, the limited RAM and graphics card.
We were just hoping that these remaining issues would be dealt with in Rev B.
We were just hoping that these 'remaining' issues would be dealt with in Rev B
Perhaps a bit too optimistic. Adding more SATA channels would require modification of the controller I believe and adding more bays could could other significant changes. There's hope that Apple may add the bays in the future however I think they'll err on the side of keeping themal issues at bay.
Originally posted by hobBIT
Xserve RAID is a fantastic piece of hardware, don't get me wrong.
But if you think about it, any setup ends up being an oxymoron, it's either overkill or half-baked.
Overkill:
If for Final Cut Pro all you want is a fast internal boot drive and a fast RAID 0 or RAID 3 for data then all you need is 3 internal HD bays. Xserve RAID is overkill for this kind of setup.
Internal HDs are user-upgradable. Most external FireWire 800 drives are not, making it difficult to swap/upgrade drives. The few with swappable drive bays are very expensive. Again overkill.
So basically your one option is an internal RAID and booting off an external FW 800 drive. Is that a professional setup? Apart from the fact, again, that external FW 800 drives are more expensive than internal SATA drives.
It almost seems like a conspiracy between Apple and FW 800 drive manufacturers...
Half-baked:
If you really are serious about it and really have the cash to get an Xserve RAID for your video editing or 3D workstation, the G5 still loses out.
At that point, where the Xserve RAID makes sense, users also expect error correcting code RAM as well as Pro graphic cards. Neither is available for the PowerMac G5.
So why bother investing in an Xserve RAID in the hopes of getting a 'high-end' setup? It isn't and it won't be.
Speaking of half-baked, you should have checked the tech specs on the current Xserves:
"The 1U (1.75-inch) Xserve comes with your choice of single or dual 2.0GHz G5 processors running at speeds of up to 30 gigaflops, a 1.0GHz frontside bus per processor for up to 8GBps throughput, two full-length 64-bit, PCI-X slots for up to 533MB/s throughput, and up to 8GB of 400MHz RAM with Error Correction Code (ECC)."
Originally posted by gfeier
Xserve comes with [...] RAM with Error Correction Code (ECC)
I know! That's why I'm so disappointed that Apple didn't add it to their PowerMac G5 Rev B. Apple has the technology and chip set necessary to supports ECC! So why not use it?
Or are you suggesting people should start buying Xserves instead of PowerMacs? Xserves are huge and very noisy. Not something you easily put underneath your desk (even though there are stands for it). I don't know about you, but I don't want an Xserve under my desk.
Of course we could put it in a noise cancellation box, or in a room next door and use it with extra long monitor and keyboard extension cables. But neither seems very practical.
Originally posted by hobBIT
It's not about storage capacity, it's about having cheap fast HD storage (via RAID 0) and internal HDs for backups.
I agree, at this time there aren't many who need 500+GB storage.
But I know quite a few people who would love to have 3 cheap 80GB drives internally: one to boot from and one for data in a RAID 0 (striped) array.
And if the PowerMac G5 had 4 internal bays one could get an additional 160GB drive to backup these drives: 4 HDs, total net storage 320GB, 80+80 for the OS and data and 160 for backups. All neatly internally, all user-servicable/upgradable.
I prefer this to external boxes with yet more cables and additional power plugs. And it's cheaper too. What is wrong with that?
This sounds like the sort of "lone ranger" pro or prosumer arrangement to me - and, again, my point has been that maybe this is a minority market. Backing up to an internal hard drive is provisional at best (although, if you're actually depending on a RAID 0, a fast, quick backup might not be a bad idea...). But if you're in a shop — where, I believe, the bulk of Apple's video pros will be found — this kind of solution looks fussy and unreliable next to a SAN with a backup to tape. That's why SANs have taken off in the last few years. Once installed, they're efficient, reliable, easy to maintain, easy to back up, and cost-effective. A SAN, server(s) and Gig-E switches has an up-front cost, but if you're a pro then by definition you're using your machines to make money, and it's a matter of routine to finance purchases that will help you make more money, or save you money over time.
However, what I'm more concerned about is the thread title. Couldn't a trusty mod or admin (Kickaha, Amorph I'm looking at you) change it to either "Is Apple deluding itself" or "Are Apple deluding themselves". Pleeeeeease.
It's driving me nuts. Besides there are standards to maintain.
Originally posted by Amorph
As for "lightning fast graphics card" - in what concrete way is FireGL hardware faster than the corresponding consumer hardware?
At least on the Nvidia side, the pro graphics cards have more geometry pipelines, more T&L pipelines, and hardware overlay plane support. I'm not that familiar with ATI, unfortunately.
-- Mark
Originally posted by crazychester
Deluding themselves? Almost certainly. It's one of the things they do best.
However, what I'm more concerned about is the thread title. Couldn't a trusty mod or admin (Kickaha, Amorph I'm looking at you) change it to either "Is Apple deluding itself" or "Are Apple deluding themselves". Pleeeeeease.
It's driving me nuts. Besides there are standards to maintain.
I dunno, it's kind of fun to drive you nuts.
Hope you don't mind, I split the difference out of deference to our British brethren... see, we treat companies as singular on this side of the pond, they treat them as plural. Wouldn't want to offend anyone...