The component Mac seems like an interesting idea, and all, but realistically I think temporary insanity should remain open year round for such speculation.
Does anybody actually think Apple is pursuing the adoption of component systems?
As far as the modular tower goes, Probably the best way to do it would be a proprietary mesh backplane of somekind like chassis-based switches use. The backplane could even be a multichannel firewire (1600? since length is controllable, as is shielding/copper/interconnect quality, clock rate can be increased reliably). PCIe/AGP/SATA etc. could be encapsulated into firewire packets, heck even firewire OIP if they felt like it.
Motherboard with basic chip-on-board video, and higher end video could be added in an expansion box; either a generic multicard box or dedicated 2-3 video card boxes. A third party could even develop SLI, or even a super workhorse whole-box vid card. RAID expansion boxes. RAID is more popular now than ever. duh. A lot of the reason people don't see the G5's as a huge boost for creative work speed is with our huge files drive speed is a major limiting factor, in my mind. Feed it the data fast enough and it'll scream; if you work with files greater than one Gig you are shooting yourself in the foot not having as fast a storage system as you can. This is the major limitation of laptops.
I occasionally produce banners/posters on my machine, and while Photoshop's text handling now verges on the almost-acceptable-on-a-basic-level, I nearly always generate the text in InDesign and treat the graphics seperately. Unless I absolutely, positively, must have this or that layer effect. I avoid Quark like the plague though, if only for the differences in CMM. I still, often, have to deliver on DVD though, unfortunately.
While we are at it how about a modular laptop? for like 6 months now I've been pining after a 17" PB footprint sized RAID, about an inch or two tall, that I could stack my laptop onto and plug into FW800. Why couldn't this use an Apple proprietary connector that contained 2-4 FW 800 channels? That would cement Apple as the ONLY solution for onsite video/hi-res, large format graphics work.
The market for Pro Computing is also changing. From a pure post environment speed has played the role in the history of keeping it all in one very big case. This changed with the Ti book which IMO was the first machine to be production capable and mobile for pro users.
sorry, i dissagree.
The Powerbook G3 Wallstreet in 1998 has that role.
It was faster than any desktop Apple sold those days. It was amazing.
The pbG4 titanium was not much better than the last incarnation of the pbG3 Pismo. Actually it was a Pismo with a new formfactor and a G4 processor. Same mobo, same harddisk sizes, same amount of ram, same busspeed, same ports and same GPU. not really a bigger deal except for price.
The reason the towers are not selling is because the people that actually use a Pro Tower for Pro work, are not at all impressed with the way the G5 is performing in many pro tasks compared to PC's.
I am one of them.
I was excited when the G5 was first announced after watching the demo, but after the independent tests were done I was glad I waited until I saw the results of the test before buying
It's also because of Processor constraints. I went through this with the G4, and a person working in 3D can not wait and watch the everybody's computer get faster like what happened with the G4 @ 500MHz for 2 years.
Now Apple is forced to put a radiator in their PowerMac to keep it cool enough for an upgrade.
The signs of past computing hardships haunt many of us. Buying a new PowerMac isn't in the cards for me right now because I can get a much faster Pro computer elsewhere.
If Apple started treating the PowerMac like a Pro machine in competition it would sell again.
Which apps are you talking about onlooker?
Also not to be an ass but PC's have their heat issues as well. I've heard many a complaint about the latest PIV's throttling themselves down at times because of their heat issues.
The Power Mac us a terrific desktop computer but is priced beyond the mainstream desktop market. Where it has performance challenges, I would suspect the biggest reason is applications that were designed for Windows and ported to OS-X with little or no optimization. Look what Apple has done with its own applications over the past couple of years... the speed increases are very impressive and has nothing to do with the hardware. Apple needs to maintain high-end desktops for the professional users but it is unreasonable to expect high unit sales on such machines.
The Mac Mini addresses the low end but what this thread seems to call for is a more powerful headless computer (tower or modular) that is priced for the mainstream. I'd imagine that would call for a starting price point of $999 and would include a G5 processor and user upgradable graphics, hard drives (2), and RAM (four slots). If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
Better yet, just provide the unit with no hard drives, video card, or memory.
The Mac Mini addresses the low end but what this thread seems to call for is a more powerful headless computer (tower or modular) that is priced for the mainstream. I'd imagine that would call for a starting price point of $999 and would include a G5 processor and user upgradable graphics, hard drives (2), and RAM (four slots). If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
The original intent of the thread was to ask if, given that the current line isn't selling well, and that Apple have calibrated themselves so that they don't depend on it selling well, it was worth it to turn the line into a few niche machines to more narrowly target pros. For instance, in this thread, we've got one guy who doesn't really need the raw CPU power but does need the fastest hard drives he can get his hands on (his work is constrained by I/O, not CPU) and one guy who needs all the CPU power he can get his hands on for 3D rendering, and the hottest GPU available for the same task. Someone else might not need much of either, but he might want to hang his high-end CRT off the machine for color-critical proofing.
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
I'm not really concerned about "mainstream" sales, although some of the professional solutions I've offered would also appeal to prosumers. Initial indications are that Apple is not having trouble selling to the mainstream anymore.
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
Really this is what the BTO store is supposed to do. A modular hardware architecture is so bring that flexibility right onto your desk so that you can change your machine after you've bought it, and make your own choices about its form factor vs. functionality.
A agree with programmer, the existing Power Mac is a modular design where you can spend more or less money on graphics cards, hard drives, processor speed, etc. The other concern raised was lagging sales. My feeling is that the high-end machines are doing okay... it's just not a big market. If bigger sales is the issue, they need to get into the mainstream on pricing.
Really this is what the BTO store is supposed to do. A modular hardware architecture is so bring that flexibility right onto your desk so that you can change your machine after you've bought it, and make your own choices about its form factor vs. functionality.
Xserve could be the answer, and I actually thought it would be when it came out, but there is still the Pro graphics card lineup missing. I like the Xserve idea for 3D. I'd use a Graphics slated Xserve w/ 2 cluster nodes if one existed, but I'd still rather have a one PowerMac that had alienwares BTO highend features available.
I think I'd be the only one buying an Xserve for that though. PowerMacs would sell better.
As far as CPU performance and what I can buy from the other side, I am very happy with a Dual 2GHz G5. These are very powerful machines and are more powerful in that OS X runs on them.
Ditto, My powermac g5 dual 2.0 outperforms my AMD 3400+ 1mb. I have a intel 3.6ghz p4 chip I bought for 150 from intel sitting in my closet. I'm waiting to build that and watch the g5 out perform that in cpu tests too. I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
Anyways, as far as a modular design. I wouldn't like that personally. I want all my stuff in 1 case. I hate clutter and after adding all the things you've listed that is a clutter.
Also, you have to remember the tower allows a smooth cooling system. Look at PC towers too. These chips are HOT now days and need a very efficient system to keep them cool. A lot of these designs just wouldn't be possible in tiny enclosures. It's just going to get worse as chips get faster. Call me crazy but I love towers. I'll take a tower over a mini / shuttle / AIO any day.
1. Power Mac G5, single 1.8 GHz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499.
2. iMac G5, single 1.8 Ghz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499. Oh yeah, includes a 17" monitor.
I really like the Power Mac but which computer would most choose at those price points? No wonder Power Mac sales are down.
One of the problems with the PowerMac is the Case and fan design. Those things are NOT cheap... in fact most parts in the PowerMacs aren't cheap. But on the same token some parts are way over priced ... ahem graphics cards.
Also not to be an ass but PC's have their heat issues as well. I've heard many a complaint about the latest PIV's throttling themselves down at times because of their heat issues.
Nick
Again, not trying to cause a ruckus over this. Heat issues are on PC's as well, but it's only the powerMac that cant fit more than 2 HD's, and 3 PCI slots because of All the fans, and/or the radiator. It's a huge computer compared to a G4 PowerMac which I have 4x 250GB drives in.
I'm not sure I know which post your addressing with the question of which apps.
[edit] Actually I shouldn't have answered you. I don't want this to turn into mud slinging festival. I'm not condemning the PowerMac G5, or saying most users need 3+ PCI slots, or 4 HD's. I'm just saying it's the way things turned out. [/edit]
[B]Again, not trying to cause a ruckus over this. Heat issues are on PC's as well, but it's only the powerMac that cant fit more than 2 HD's, and 3 PCI slots because of All the fans, and/or the radiator. It's a huge computer compared to a G4 PowerMac which I have 4x 250GB drives in.
Don't want to get into a fight either. But you need to realize something too. First off the Prescott is basically a fire waiting to happen. That thing runs way hotter than the g5 and hotter than the AMD's. Have you seen the coolers they are putting on those puppies? Basically people are going to have to start moving to water cooling for them. Or have massive fan / heat sink / heat pipes on them. They only run in the 40-50 degree celsius when the towers are built properly with proper cooling. Most of these systems have fans blowing 24/7. No temp control, start the fan when its getting hot, turn it off when its cool. It just runs all the time. Its loud. Apple has a wonderful design on their g5s... really quiet..etc.
Long story short, all cpu companies are moving to designs that need to cool these chips better. Its part of the system. Apple could EASILY add 4 bays / 2 optical drives / card readers / etc in the current case. Guaranteed rev C will be different case / design
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
Comments
Does anybody actually think Apple is pursuing the adoption of component systems?
I think were reaching for an apparition in here.
Motherboard with basic chip-on-board video, and higher end video could be added in an expansion box; either a generic multicard box or dedicated 2-3 video card boxes. A third party could even develop SLI, or even a super workhorse whole-box vid card. RAID expansion boxes. RAID is more popular now than ever. duh. A lot of the reason people don't see the G5's as a huge boost for creative work speed is with our huge files drive speed is a major limiting factor, in my mind. Feed it the data fast enough and it'll scream; if you work with files greater than one Gig you are shooting yourself in the foot not having as fast a storage system as you can. This is the major limitation of laptops.
I occasionally produce banners/posters on my machine, and while Photoshop's text handling now verges on the almost-acceptable-on-a-basic-level, I nearly always generate the text in InDesign and treat the graphics seperately. Unless I absolutely, positively, must have this or that layer effect. I avoid Quark like the plague though, if only for the differences in CMM. I still, often, have to deliver on DVD though, unfortunately.
While we are at it how about a modular laptop? for like 6 months now I've been pining after a 17" PB footprint sized RAID, about an inch or two tall, that I could stack my laptop onto and plug into FW800. Why couldn't this use an Apple proprietary connector that contained 2-4 FW 800 channels? That would cement Apple as the ONLY solution for onsite video/hi-res, large format graphics work.
Originally posted by Celco
The market for Pro Computing is also changing. From a pure post environment speed has played the role in the history of keeping it all in one very big case. This changed with the Ti book which IMO was the first machine to be production capable and mobile for pro users.
sorry, i dissagree.
The Powerbook G3 Wallstreet in 1998 has that role.
It was faster than any desktop Apple sold those days. It was amazing.
The pbG4 titanium was not much better than the last incarnation of the pbG3 Pismo. Actually it was a Pismo with a new formfactor and a G4 processor. Same mobo, same harddisk sizes, same amount of ram, same busspeed, same ports and same GPU. not really a bigger deal except for price.
Originally posted by Leonard
[snip] there's no reason for waiting 2.5 months for an new Power Mac.
i waited 10 weeks for my 20"iMacG5
so waiting 2.5 months for a 2.5Ghz dp G5 isn't that astounasing.
Originally posted by onlooker
The reason the towers are not selling is because the people that actually use a Pro Tower for Pro work, are not at all impressed with the way the G5 is performing in many pro tasks compared to PC's.
I am one of them.
I was excited when the G5 was first announced after watching the demo, but after the independent tests were done I was glad I waited until I saw the results of the test before buying
It's also because of Processor constraints. I went through this with the G4, and a person working in 3D can not wait and watch the everybody's computer get faster like what happened with the G4 @ 500MHz for 2 years.
Now Apple is forced to put a radiator in their PowerMac to keep it cool enough for an upgrade.
The signs of past computing hardships haunt many of us. Buying a new PowerMac isn't in the cards for me right now because I can get a much faster Pro computer elsewhere.
If Apple started treating the PowerMac like a Pro machine in competition it would sell again.
Which apps are you talking about onlooker?
Also not to be an ass but PC's have their heat issues as well. I've heard many a complaint about the latest PIV's throttling themselves down at times because of their heat issues.
Nick
The Mac Mini addresses the low end but what this thread seems to call for is a more powerful headless computer (tower or modular) that is priced for the mainstream. I'd imagine that would call for a starting price point of $999 and would include a G5 processor and user upgradable graphics, hard drives (2), and RAM (four slots). If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
Originally posted by gar
sorry, i dissagree.
The Powerbook G3 Wallstreet in 1998 has that role.
It was faster than any desktop Apple sold those days. It was amazing.
Ah, my trusted Wallstreet, with the expansion bays
When someone's not on my G4 pwerbook I use a PowerBook G3 Kanga OS 9 (the very first G3) with it's
12.1" screen with an attached monitor( I broke the lcd
years ago.) I still have my Mac Classic too.
Originally posted by jaslu81
If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
Better yet, just provide the unit with no hard drives, video card, or memory.
Originally posted by jaslu81
The Mac Mini addresses the low end but what this thread seems to call for is a more powerful headless computer (tower or modular) that is priced for the mainstream. I'd imagine that would call for a starting price point of $999 and would include a G5 processor and user upgradable graphics, hard drives (2), and RAM (four slots). If they could drop the price of the current single-processor G5 PowerMac to $999 rather than creating a new computer, that represent an easy solution and the declining sales may push them to do it.
The original intent of the thread was to ask if, given that the current line isn't selling well, and that Apple have calibrated themselves so that they don't depend on it selling well, it was worth it to turn the line into a few niche machines to more narrowly target pros. For instance, in this thread, we've got one guy who doesn't really need the raw CPU power but does need the fastest hard drives he can get his hands on (his work is constrained by I/O, not CPU) and one guy who needs all the CPU power he can get his hands on for 3D rendering, and the hottest GPU available for the same task. Someone else might not need much of either, but he might want to hang his high-end CRT off the machine for color-critical proofing.
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
I'm not really concerned about "mainstream" sales, although some of the professional solutions I've offered would also appeal to prosumers. Initial indications are that Apple is not having trouble selling to the mainstream anymore.
Originally posted by Amorph
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
Really this is what the BTO store is supposed to do. A modular hardware architecture is so bring that flexibility right onto your desk so that you can change your machine after you've bought it, and make your own choices about its form factor vs. functionality.
1. Power Mac G5, single 1.8 GHz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499.
2. iMac G5, single 1.8 Ghz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499. Oh yeah, includes a 17" monitor.
I really like the Power Mac but which computer would most choose at those price points? No wonder Power Mac sales are down.
Originally posted by Programmer
Really this is what the BTO store is supposed to do. A modular hardware architecture is so bring that flexibility right onto your desk so that you can change your machine after you've bought it, and make your own choices about its form factor vs. functionality.
Xserve could be the answer, and I actually thought it would be when it came out, but there is still the Pro graphics card lineup missing. I like the Xserve idea for 3D. I'd use a Graphics slated Xserve w/ 2 cluster nodes if one existed, but I'd still rather have a one PowerMac that had alienwares BTO highend features available.
I think I'd be the only one buying an Xserve for that though. PowerMacs would sell better.
Originally posted by tink
As far as CPU performance and what I can buy from the other side, I am very happy with a Dual 2GHz G5. These are very powerful machines and are more powerful in that OS X runs on them.
Ditto, My powermac g5 dual 2.0 outperforms my AMD 3400+ 1mb. I have a intel 3.6ghz p4 chip I bought for 150 from intel sitting in my closet. I'm waiting to build that and watch the g5 out perform that in cpu tests too. I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
Anyways, as far as a modular design. I wouldn't like that personally. I want all my stuff in 1 case. I hate clutter and after adding all the things you've listed that is a clutter.
Also, you have to remember the tower allows a smooth cooling system. Look at PC towers too. These chips are HOT now days and need a very efficient system to keep them cool. A lot of these designs just wouldn't be possible in tiny enclosures. It's just going to get worse as chips get faster. Call me crazy but I love towers. I'll take a tower over a mini / shuttle / AIO any day.
Originally posted by jaslu81
Consider the choice:
1. Power Mac G5, single 1.8 GHz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499.
2. iMac G5, single 1.8 Ghz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499. Oh yeah, includes a 17" monitor.
I really like the Power Mac but which computer would most choose at those price points? No wonder Power Mac sales are down.
One of the problems with the PowerMac is the Case and fan design. Those things are NOT cheap... in fact most parts in the PowerMacs aren't cheap. But on the same token some parts are way over priced ... ahem graphics cards.
Originally posted by trumptman
Which apps are you talking about onlooker?
Also not to be an ass but PC's have their heat issues as well. I've heard many a complaint about the latest PIV's throttling themselves down at times because of their heat issues.
Nick
Again, not trying to cause a ruckus over this. Heat issues are on PC's as well, but it's only the powerMac that cant fit more than 2 HD's, and 3 PCI slots because of All the fans, and/or the radiator. It's a huge computer compared to a G4 PowerMac which I have 4x 250GB drives in.
I'm not sure I know which post your addressing with the question of which apps.
[edit] Actually I shouldn't have answered you. I don't want this to turn into mud slinging festival. I'm not condemning the PowerMac G5, or saying most users need 3+ PCI slots, or 4 HD's. I'm just saying it's the way things turned out. [/edit]
Originally posted by jaslu81
Consider the choice:
1. Power Mac G5, single 1.8 GHz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499.
2. iMac G5, single 1.8 Ghz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499. Oh yeah, includes a 17" monitor.
I really like the Power Mac but which computer would most choose at those price points? No wonder Power Mac sales are down.
They choose:
a. Power Mac G5, single 1.8 GHz G5, 80 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,499. + a monitor of choice
or
b. iMac G5, single 1.8 Ghz G5, 160 GB SATA, Superdrive, GeForce FX 5200 Ultra for $1,899 with 20" Cinema Display
Originally posted by onlooker
[B]Again, not trying to cause a ruckus over this. Heat issues are on PC's as well, but it's only the powerMac that cant fit more than 2 HD's, and 3 PCI slots because of All the fans, and/or the radiator. It's a huge computer compared to a G4 PowerMac which I have 4x 250GB drives in.
Don't want to get into a fight either. But you need to realize something too. First off the Prescott is basically a fire waiting to happen. That thing runs way hotter than the g5 and hotter than the AMD's. Have you seen the coolers they are putting on those puppies? Basically people are going to have to start moving to water cooling for them. Or have massive fan / heat sink / heat pipes on them. They only run in the 40-50 degree celsius when the towers are built properly with proper cooling. Most of these systems have fans blowing 24/7. No temp control, start the fan when its getting hot, turn it off when its cool. It just runs all the time. Its loud. Apple has a wonderful design on their g5s... really quiet..etc.
Long story short, all cpu companies are moving to designs that need to cool these chips better. Its part of the system. Apple could EASILY add 4 bays / 2 optical drives / card readers / etc in the current case. Guaranteed rev C will be different case / design
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?