The OEM supplier warrantees the cooler for that long... which is completely different from "expected lifespan". Sorry bub, go troll somewhere else.
Has there even been a single destructive failure reported for the powermac liquid cooling system?
Not too well read are we?
According to reliable sources, Delphi only guarantees the cooling systems to Apple for a period of 2.5 years, though the expected life-span of each unit is rumored to be closer to 2 years. Sources say the lifespan is limited by potenial leakage of the thermal conductive fluid inside the systems. Apple reportedly fears the fluid could cause damage to consumer's valuables or expensive carpets, which would leave the company exposted to potential lawsuits.
Any cards in the 800 series are going to support PCI and AGP. ATI stated that. But it's been widely known that ATI has turned their development solely to Express on new card development. Any new cards developed from EXISTING lines will support existing machines, but new lines (900 series?) won't. Remember that ATI's 800 series cards supported Express first, with direct Express support, and an AGP to Express bridge chip was developed later, as they said, solely to support existing machines, but that they would not commit to continued use of the chip. They said (this was several months ago) that there were STILL (I emphasize that word) enough customers to make it worthwhile not to ignore them.
Well, from this, it sounds more like ATI is taking more of a wait-and-see attitude towards AGP. If there's still sufficient demand when the x900 comes out, they'll slap the bridge chip on it and produce AGP cards. That's a far cry from "The last high end cards ATI will have for AGP are the 800 series."
I've had more than 10 months to think about this and seeing todays
updates helped me to make up my mind.
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
You will NOT be disappointed with that dual 2.0 rev b. I loved mine, it was almost too much computer for me. I never maxed out the processor unless I was benchmarking, rendering or compiling. Great computer.
Only thing I suggest is grabbing an ATI 9800 pro 256mb from newegg for 180-200... (I had a 9600XT in mine... wish I had the extra umph on the grpahics).
Well, from this, it sounds more like ATI is taking more of a wait-and-see attitude towards AGP. If there's still sufficient demand when the x900 comes out, they'll slap the bridge chip on it and produce AGP cards. That's a far cry from "The last high end cards ATI will have for AGP are the 800 series."
That's your take on it. If you read ARS and Anand you would have seen several articles about this over the past few months. It's not their take, nor is it mine. ATI seems very focused on going forward, and their bridge chip is only to counter the fact that NVIDIA has been lagging in their Express solutions and hadn't come up with a satisfactory direct Express interface, and so were using their older AGP interface with an Express to AGP bridge. ATI countered with an AGP to EXpress bridge.
But NVIDIA has said that they would be using direct Express solutions shortly as well.
Both companies have been evasive about AGP support for their next chip families, but have said that the bridge solutions were just for the short term.
The take in the industry is that they would be dropping AGP support shortly (next 6-12 months).
Both companies have agreed to conform to MS's Longhorn graphics protocols which call for Express support ONLY, with MS taking over control of the video RAM on the GPU boards.
I've had more than 10 months to think about this and seeing todays
updates helped me to make up my mind.
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
Or, if you paid $1849, you can get the latest pre-order 2.0 Ghz machine for $1999 from some mail order place with 1GB of RAM, free shipping and no tax. I'm leaning that direction since I want the 128MB vid card and the updated HD, Superdrive, etc.
But not 3GHz. At least IBM is still raising speeds. Both AMD and Intel have both stopped months ago. Don't forget that their dual core chips are significantly slower per core than their single core chip.
Intel released a 3.8p4 8 weeks ago, or 2 months ago. It makes sense to scale back the dual cores a few mhz and then go from there. You don't start out with the hardest possible process at the time, you work with what is easier to make.
We will see dual cores up to 3.6-3.8ghz from intel and 2.6ghz from amd soon... I wouldn't say significantly slower either. I wouldn't call 3.2ghz significantly slower than 3.6 and 3.8ghz. On the same token I wouldn't call 2.2dual core significantly slower than 2.6ghz single core on AMD's side. 400mhz isn't anything now days. Give them 2-4 months and some sales and they'll be right back to where they are now with the dual cores.
Intel released a 3.8p4 8 weeks ago, or 2 months ago. It makes sense to scale back the dual cores a few mhz and then go from there. You don't start out with the hardest possible process at the time, you work with what is easier to make.
We will see dual cores up to 3.6-3.8ghz from intel and 2.6ghz from amd soon... I wouldn't say significantly slower either. I wouldn't call 3.2ghz significantly slower than 3.6 and 3.8ghz. On the same token I wouldn't call 2.2dual core significantly slower than 2.6ghz single core on AMD's side. 400mhz isn't anything now days. Give them 2-4 months and some sales and they'll be right back to where they are now with the dual cores.
Yes, they reached 3.8 in Feb. But that's it. Prescott isn't going any further. I expect the dual cores to get to 3,8 at some point by the end of the year. Now they will be concentrating on the M class, which uses much less power, but also runs at a slower speed. It has some advantages over Prescott, and also a few disadvantages.
It's the percentage that matters not the actual difference. When Intel went from 3.06 to 3.21 over a year ago, a big deal was made of that fact in the PC press. That's almost nothing, about 5%.
IBM's going from 2.0 to 2.7 is a much bigger step than Intel going from 3.06 to 3.8 during the same time. People here forget that. Thats about 35% vs. 25%. So IBM has been holding up pretty well in that regard. And 2.4-2.6 is about 8%. That's not much but if you read the forums at Anand and ARs, you will see that people are NOT happy about it.
The GX supposedly uses significantly less power, as does the MP, which is based on it. When they will come out is anyone's guess.
Yes, they reached 3.8 in Feb. But that's it. Prescott isn't going any further. I expect the dual cores to get to 3,8 at some point by the end of the year. Now they will be concentrating on the M class, which uses much less power, but also runs at a slower speed. It has some advantages over Prescott, and also a few disadvantages.
It's the percentage that matters not the actual difference. When Intel went from 3.06 to 3.21 over a year ago, a big deal was made of that fact in the PC press. That's almost nothing, about 5%.
IBM's going from 2.0 to 2.7 is a much bigger step than Intel going from 3.06 to 3.8 during the same time. People here forget that. Thats about 35% vs. 25%. So IBM has been holding up pretty well in that regard. And 2.4-2.6 is about 8%. That's not much but if you read the forums at Anand and ARs, you will see that people are NOT happy about it.
The GX supposedly uses significantly less power, as does the MP, which is based on it. When they will come out is anyone's guess.
Dont' you think those % are a little misleading? That is a big increase for IBM compared to Intel, but at the same time you have to remember that IBM is a full 1 Ghz behind Intel.
Personally, I don't have a problem with IBM's pace, I just wish they would hurry up the dual core crap because Intel needs it stuck to them for a change.
Dont' you think those % are a little misleading? That is a big increase for IBM compared to Intel, but at the same time you have to remember that IBM is a full 1 Ghz behind Intel.
Personally, I don't have a problem with IBM's pace, I just wish they would hurry up the dual core crap because Intel needs it stuck to them for a change.
Do the math yourself, you don't have to trust my percentages if you don't like. The numbers are correct though. It's not misleading at all. IBM has improved their chip faster than Intel has. The big deal about the 3GHz mark was that IBm would have gone up 50% in the time that Intel went up 20%. That didn't happen, but IBM is still ahead on that accord.
Yes Intel is a GHz ahead. As we all know, it means nothing. AMD's speeds are about the same as IBM's, and match the performance of intel. Some say that they are ahead.
Both the Power 5 from IBM and the Itanium from Intel are much slower chips, but are about twice as powerful as the Opteron, Prescott, and 970.
The speed doesn't matter. It's what is going on inside the chips, along with the memory bandwidth etc. that make the chip what it is.
Intel chose to use speed as their method to keep up. Other companies have different ways of doing it.
Do the math yourself, you don't have to trust my percentages if you don't like. The numbers are correct though. It's not misleading at all. IBM has improved their chip faster than Intel has. The big deal about the 3GHz mark was that IBm would have gone up 50% in the time that Intel went up 20%. That didn't happen, but IBM is still ahead on that accord.
Yes Intel is a GHz ahead. As we all know, it means nothing. AMD's speeds are about the same as IBM's, and match the performance of intel. Some say that they are ahead.
Both the Power 5 from IBM and the Itanium from Intel are much slower chips, but are about twice as powerful as the Opteron, Prescott, and 970.
The speed doesn't matter. It's what is going on inside the chips, along with the memory bandwidth etc. that make the chip what it is.
Intel chose to use speed as their method to keep up. Other companies have different ways of doing it.
I am not doubitng the math (I did the numbers though ) or disagreeing with you. I am just saying, it is like saying that the Vette got a 10% hp increase to 400hp and the Camaro got a 20% increase to 300 hp. Although the Camaro made a bigger stride % wise, it is still a decent amount behind the Vette hp wise. Even though it could possibly weigh less and travel faster. My point was that the % increase in clock speed does not tell the entire story (which is exactly what you stated above).
Ghz is window dressing in the computer world just like horespower is in the automotive industry. They really don't mean too much.
I am not doubitng the math (I did the numbers though ) or disagreeing with you. I am just saying, it is like saying that the Vette got a 10% hp increase to 400hp and the Camaro got a 20% increase to 300 hp. Although the Camaro made a bigger stride % wise, it is still a decent amount behind the Vette hp wise. Even though it could possibly weigh less and travel faster. My point was that the % increase in clock speed does not tell the entire story (which is exactly what you stated above).
Ghz is window dressing in the computer world just like horespower is in the automotive industry. They really don't mean too much.
We agree...
Well, I didn't say that the percentage didn't matter. Percentage does matter. The actual clock speed does not.
Let's use your example.
First of all those two cars don't compare. but I'll pretend that they do.
So, let's say that the vette went to 150 mph before and the increase of 10% in hp let it move at 165 - a 10% increase.
The camarro moved at, say, 145, but had the 20% hp increase for a 20% increase in speed. That would be 173.5 mph.
I would say that percentege made a difference.
Nothing is that cut and dry, and please, sports car owners don't flame me for that. This is just a thought experiment.
What I'm saying is that GHz doesn't matter across DIFFERENT proc lines. But an increase in clock speed does matter. If one machine increases by 24% and the other by 35%, if both are roughfly the same in performance before, then the bigger increase in speed will change the relative performance levels.
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
I'm with you there. I just couldn't wait any longer. I've already got 2 gigs of RAM from Crucial on the way. I'll probably pick up the beast this weekend, and get happy on Tiger.
Nowhere in my wildest imagination would I have expected such a pathetic PowerMac upgrade. No PCI-E? When Tiger is taking everything to the video card in both directions? But I need a new PowerMac. My dual-gig MDD just isn't cutting the mustard anymore for big FCP rendering, etc. And the noise makes me looney (OK, well, loonier.) And I really want to rock Motion 2, and get good at it fast.
I'm deciding between a dual 2.3 and a 2.7. I'd probably just do the 2.0 but I need the faster PCI slots for video. I'm sure I'll eventually upgrade my video card to the ATI X800, mostly for Motion, but I also want to toy with some games and get nice fps at higher res. No big rush though.
I'm disappointed, but also relieved in a way. I just want to get a dual G5 in here and get back to making stuff at this point. And not so much tripping on what "could be." It's no dream machine, but I'm sure I'll be sporting wood nonetheless.
I'm with you there. I just couldn't wait any longer. I've already got 2 gigs of RAM from Crucial on the way. I'll probably pick up the beast this weekend, and get happy on Tiger.
Nowhere in my wildest imagination would I have expected such a pathetic PowerMac upgrade. No PCI-E? When Tiger is taking everything to the video card in both directions? But I need a new PowerMac. My dual-gig MDD just isn't cutting the mustard anymore for big FCP rendering, etc. And the noise makes me looney (OK, well, loonier.) And I really want to rock Motion 2, and get good at it fast.
I'm deciding between a dual 2.3 and a 2.7. I'd probably just do the 2.0 but I need the faster PCI slots for video. I'm sure I'll eventually upgrade my video card to the ATI X800, mostly for Motion, but I also want to toy with some games and get nice fps at higher res. No big rush though.
I'm disappointed, but also relieved in a way. I just want to get a dual G5 in here and get back to making stuff at this point. And not so much tripping on what "could be." It's no dream machine, but I'm sure I'll be sporting wood nonetheless.
Next stop. Final Cut Studio upgrade. Yummy!
Good for you. You're the smart pro buyer who buys what (s)he needs when needed, and doesn't anguish (well, not too much) over what might be.
According to reliable sources, Delphi only guarantees the cooling systems to Apple for a period of 2.5 years, though the expected life-span of each unit is rumored to be closer to 2 years.
Delphie doesn't make the cooling systems anymore, Panasonic does.
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
Dave J: "2 year expected lifespan"
The OEM supplier warrantees the cooler for that long... which is completely different from "expected lifespan". Sorry bub, go troll somewhere else.
Has there even been a single destructive failure reported for the powermac liquid cooling system?
Not too well read are we?
According to reliable sources, Delphi only guarantees the cooling systems to Apple for a period of 2.5 years, though the expected life-span of each unit is rumored to be closer to 2 years. Sources say the lifespan is limited by potenial leakage of the thermal conductive fluid inside the systems. Apple reportedly fears the fluid could cause damage to consumer's valuables or expensive carpets, which would leave the company exposted to potential lawsuits.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=993
Interesting that you fling insults with abandon at those who are more informed than you are. Interesting and, unfortunately, typical.
Originally posted by melgross
Any cards in the 800 series are going to support PCI and AGP. ATI stated that. But it's been widely known that ATI has turned their development solely to Express on new card development. Any new cards developed from EXISTING lines will support existing machines, but new lines (900 series?) won't. Remember that ATI's 800 series cards supported Express first, with direct Express support, and an AGP to Express bridge chip was developed later, as they said, solely to support existing machines, but that they would not commit to continued use of the chip. They said (this was several months ago) that there were STILL (I emphasize that word) enough customers to make it worthwhile not to ignore them.
Well, from this, it sounds more like ATI is taking more of a wait-and-see attitude towards AGP. If there's still sufficient demand when the x900 comes out, they'll slap the bridge chip on it and produce AGP cards. That's a far cry from "The last high end cards ATI will have for AGP are the 800 series."
updates helped me to make up my mind.
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
You will NOT be disappointed with that dual 2.0 rev b. I loved mine, it was almost too much computer for me. I never maxed out the processor unless I was benchmarking, rendering or compiling. Great computer.
Only thing I suggest is grabbing an ATI 9800 pro 256mb from newegg for 180-200... (I had a 9600XT in mine... wish I had the extra umph on the grpahics).
Originally posted by Gamblor
Well, from this, it sounds more like ATI is taking more of a wait-and-see attitude towards AGP. If there's still sufficient demand when the x900 comes out, they'll slap the bridge chip on it and produce AGP cards. That's a far cry from "The last high end cards ATI will have for AGP are the 800 series."
That's your take on it. If you read ARS and Anand you would have seen several articles about this over the past few months. It's not their take, nor is it mine. ATI seems very focused on going forward, and their bridge chip is only to counter the fact that NVIDIA has been lagging in their Express solutions and hadn't come up with a satisfactory direct Express interface, and so were using their older AGP interface with an Express to AGP bridge. ATI countered with an AGP to EXpress bridge.
But NVIDIA has said that they would be using direct Express solutions shortly as well.
Both companies have been evasive about AGP support for their next chip families, but have said that the bridge solutions were just for the short term.
The take in the industry is that they would be dropping AGP support shortly (next 6-12 months).
Both companies have agreed to conform to MS's Longhorn graphics protocols which call for Express support ONLY, with MS taking over control of the video RAM on the GPU boards.
Do you think that this will change for Apple?
I doubt it.
I'm still looking into
20"+ HD display
2nd 160 SATA drive
Logic 7 or ProFools LE ( don't get me started )
Minimum 6 input preamped interface
Mikes, cables, connectors
and a huge learning curve.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I've had more than 10 months to think about this and seeing todays
updates helped me to make up my mind.
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
Or, if you paid $1849, you can get the latest pre-order 2.0 Ghz machine for $1999 from some mail order place with 1GB of RAM, free shipping and no tax. I'm leaning that direction since I want the 128MB vid card and the updated HD, Superdrive, etc.
Originally posted by melgross
But not 3GHz. At least IBM is still raising speeds. Both AMD and Intel have both stopped months ago. Don't forget that their dual core chips are significantly slower per core than their single core chip.
Intel released a 3.8p4 8 weeks ago, or 2 months ago. It makes sense to scale back the dual cores a few mhz and then go from there. You don't start out with the hardest possible process at the time, you work with what is easier to make.
We will see dual cores up to 3.6-3.8ghz from intel and 2.6ghz from amd soon... I wouldn't say significantly slower either. I wouldn't call 3.2ghz significantly slower than 3.6 and 3.8ghz. On the same token I wouldn't call 2.2dual core significantly slower than 2.6ghz single core on AMD's side. 400mhz isn't anything now days. Give them 2-4 months and some sales and they'll be right back to where they are now with the dual cores.
Originally posted by emig647
Intel released a 3.8p4 8 weeks ago, or 2 months ago. It makes sense to scale back the dual cores a few mhz and then go from there. You don't start out with the hardest possible process at the time, you work with what is easier to make.
We will see dual cores up to 3.6-3.8ghz from intel and 2.6ghz from amd soon... I wouldn't say significantly slower either. I wouldn't call 3.2ghz significantly slower than 3.6 and 3.8ghz. On the same token I wouldn't call 2.2dual core significantly slower than 2.6ghz single core on AMD's side. 400mhz isn't anything now days. Give them 2-4 months and some sales and they'll be right back to where they are now with the dual cores.
Yes, they reached 3.8 in Feb. But that's it. Prescott isn't going any further. I expect the dual cores to get to 3,8 at some point by the end of the year. Now they will be concentrating on the M class, which uses much less power, but also runs at a slower speed. It has some advantages over Prescott, and also a few disadvantages.
It's the percentage that matters not the actual difference. When Intel went from 3.06 to 3.21 over a year ago, a big deal was made of that fact in the PC press. That's almost nothing, about 5%.
IBM's going from 2.0 to 2.7 is a much bigger step than Intel going from 3.06 to 3.8 during the same time. People here forget that. Thats about 35% vs. 25%. So IBM has been holding up pretty well in that regard. And 2.4-2.6 is about 8%. That's not much but if you read the forums at Anand and ARs, you will see that people are NOT happy about it.
The GX supposedly uses significantly less power, as does the MP, which is based on it. When they will come out is anyone's guess.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, they reached 3.8 in Feb. But that's it. Prescott isn't going any further. I expect the dual cores to get to 3,8 at some point by the end of the year. Now they will be concentrating on the M class, which uses much less power, but also runs at a slower speed. It has some advantages over Prescott, and also a few disadvantages.
It's the percentage that matters not the actual difference. When Intel went from 3.06 to 3.21 over a year ago, a big deal was made of that fact in the PC press. That's almost nothing, about 5%.
IBM's going from 2.0 to 2.7 is a much bigger step than Intel going from 3.06 to 3.8 during the same time. People here forget that. Thats about 35% vs. 25%. So IBM has been holding up pretty well in that regard. And 2.4-2.6 is about 8%. That's not much but if you read the forums at Anand and ARs, you will see that people are NOT happy about it.
The GX supposedly uses significantly less power, as does the MP, which is based on it. When they will come out is anyone's guess.
Dont' you think those % are a little misleading? That is a big increase for IBM compared to Intel, but at the same time you have to remember that IBM is a full 1 Ghz behind Intel.
Personally, I don't have a problem with IBM's pace, I just wish they would hurry up the dual core crap because Intel needs it stuck to them for a change.
Originally posted by aplnub
Dont' you think those % are a little misleading? That is a big increase for IBM compared to Intel, but at the same time you have to remember that IBM is a full 1 Ghz behind Intel.
Personally, I don't have a problem with IBM's pace, I just wish they would hurry up the dual core crap because Intel needs it stuck to them for a change.
Do the math yourself, you don't have to trust my percentages if you don't like. The numbers are correct though. It's not misleading at all. IBM has improved their chip faster than Intel has. The big deal about the 3GHz mark was that IBm would have gone up 50% in the time that Intel went up 20%. That didn't happen, but IBM is still ahead on that accord.
Yes Intel is a GHz ahead. As we all know, it means nothing. AMD's speeds are about the same as IBM's, and match the performance of intel. Some say that they are ahead.
Both the Power 5 from IBM and the Itanium from Intel are much slower chips, but are about twice as powerful as the Opteron, Prescott, and 970.
The speed doesn't matter. It's what is going on inside the chips, along with the memory bandwidth etc. that make the chip what it is.
Intel chose to use speed as their method to keep up. Other companies have different ways of doing it.
Originally posted by melgross
Do the math yourself, you don't have to trust my percentages if you don't like. The numbers are correct though. It's not misleading at all. IBM has improved their chip faster than Intel has. The big deal about the 3GHz mark was that IBm would have gone up 50% in the time that Intel went up 20%. That didn't happen, but IBM is still ahead on that accord.
Yes Intel is a GHz ahead. As we all know, it means nothing. AMD's speeds are about the same as IBM's, and match the performance of intel. Some say that they are ahead.
Both the Power 5 from IBM and the Itanium from Intel are much slower chips, but are about twice as powerful as the Opteron, Prescott, and 970.
The speed doesn't matter. It's what is going on inside the chips, along with the memory bandwidth etc. that make the chip what it is.
Intel chose to use speed as their method to keep up. Other companies have different ways of doing it.
I am not doubitng the math (I did the numbers though
Ghz is window dressing in the computer world just like horespower is in the automotive industry. They really don't mean too much.
We agree...
Originally posted by aplnub
I am not doubitng the math (I did the numbers though
Ghz is window dressing in the computer world just like horespower is in the automotive industry. They really don't mean too much.
We agree...
Well, I didn't say that the percentage didn't matter. Percentage does matter. The actual clock speed does not.
Let's use your example.
First of all those two cars don't compare. but I'll pretend that they do.
So, let's say that the vette went to 150 mph before and the increase of 10% in hp let it move at 165 - a 10% increase.
The camarro moved at, say, 145, but had the 20% hp increase for a 20% increase in speed. That would be 173.5 mph.
I would say that percentege made a difference.
Nothing is that cut and dry, and please, sports car owners don't flame me for that. This is just a thought experiment.
What I'm saying is that GHz doesn't matter across DIFFERENT proc lines. But an increase in clock speed does matter. If one machine increases by 24% and the other by 35%, if both are roughfly the same in performance before, then the bigger increase in speed will change the relative performance levels.
Originally posted by melgross
First of all those two cars don't compare. but I'll pretend that they do.
Your right, I would rather have my camaro on the drag strip.
Originally posted by aplnub
Your right, I would rather have my camaro on the drag strip.
Good! We agree on that part too.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I'm sure we'll see something way better this coming year, but I re-evaluated my real needs for audio recording and couldn't pass up a new Rev B 2.0 dually today for $1699.
Upgrading to 1 GB cost me $150 more, but I'm fine with it.
I'll be able to get a new monitor and maybe an interface with the money I saved, so I should be in pretty good shape for a while.
I'm with you there. I just couldn't wait any longer. I've already got 2 gigs of RAM from Crucial on the way. I'll probably pick up the beast this weekend, and get happy on Tiger.
Nowhere in my wildest imagination would I have expected such a pathetic PowerMac upgrade. No PCI-E? When Tiger is taking everything to the video card in both directions? But I need a new PowerMac. My dual-gig MDD just isn't cutting the mustard anymore for big FCP rendering, etc. And the noise makes me looney (OK, well, loonier.) And I really want to rock Motion 2, and get good at it fast.
I'm deciding between a dual 2.3 and a 2.7. I'd probably just do the 2.0 but I need the faster PCI slots for video. I'm sure I'll eventually upgrade my video card to the ATI X800, mostly for Motion, but I also want to toy with some games and get nice fps at higher res. No big rush though.
I'm disappointed, but also relieved in a way. I just want to get a dual G5 in here and get back to making stuff at this point. And not so much tripping on what "could be." It's no dream machine, but I'm sure I'll be sporting wood nonetheless.
Next stop. Final Cut Studio upgrade. Yummy!
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
I'm with you there. I just couldn't wait any longer. I've already got 2 gigs of RAM from Crucial on the way. I'll probably pick up the beast this weekend, and get happy on Tiger.
Nowhere in my wildest imagination would I have expected such a pathetic PowerMac upgrade. No PCI-E? When Tiger is taking everything to the video card in both directions? But I need a new PowerMac. My dual-gig MDD just isn't cutting the mustard anymore for big FCP rendering, etc. And the noise makes me looney (OK, well, loonier.) And I really want to rock Motion 2, and get good at it fast.
I'm deciding between a dual 2.3 and a 2.7. I'd probably just do the 2.0 but I need the faster PCI slots for video. I'm sure I'll eventually upgrade my video card to the ATI X800, mostly for Motion, but I also want to toy with some games and get nice fps at higher res. No big rush though.
I'm disappointed, but also relieved in a way. I just want to get a dual G5 in here and get back to making stuff at this point. And not so much tripping on what "could be." It's no dream machine, but I'm sure I'll be sporting wood nonetheless.
Next stop. Final Cut Studio upgrade. Yummy!
Good for you. You're the smart pro buyer who buys what (s)he needs when needed, and doesn't anguish (well, not too much) over what might be.
Originally posted by Dave J
Not too well read are we?
According to reliable sources, Delphi only guarantees the cooling systems to Apple for a period of 2.5 years, though the expected life-span of each unit is rumored to be closer to 2 years.
Delphie doesn't make the cooling systems anymore, Panasonic does.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Delphie doesn't make the cooling systems anymore, Panasonic does.
This is the first I have heard about this, can you prove this?
------------
Delphi BTW