I think this actually makes a lot of sense, there's already the mac MINI so Apple should add two more headless macs: mac (BLANK) and mac PRO.....great idea!!!
No, it's a terrible idea. This "Mac" would not only be a hugely confusing brand name ("What do you have?" ?_"A Mac" ?_"Oh, you mean like, the platform? Or the model? Or??"); it would also severely eat into the iMac's sales, because it would inevitably be priced at the exact same levels. Apple's mid-range desktop is an all-in-one. Deal with it.
In the old days, DTP operators were most certainly 'Pro' users. They required the fastest machine available and added Adobe Certified graphics accelerators with crazy amounts of VRAM so that they could drive their massive 21" CRTs at millions of colours.
Today, most CS2 users needs are met by an iMac or an entry level uni-processor G5. The majority of studios I visit have a mixture of G4 MDDs and 1.6GHz G5s. The most up to date piece of kit I have seen to date was a DC 2GHz G5 with a 20" ACD ? and every single member of staff creamed themselves over it.
Most studios buy the basic 'Pro' machine and run it for three years without ever opening the case once.
So, I don't think that todays definition of 'Pro' includes CS2 users. Instead, 'Pro' includes those involved in video production, render meisters, scientific applications and clusters leveraging racks full of Xserves.
A basic headless 'Mac' that could drive the ACDs would satisfy a lot of users needs, whilst a 'Mac Pro' could focus on users that require multiple graphics cards running at full pelt, multiple optical drives, hardware RAID running on 3+ drive mechanisms, multiple ethernet ports, etc. etc.
A powerful little 'Mac' and a full-on 'Mac Pro' workstation would make an awesome combination that would keep everyone happy.
I would agree with most of what you say, but in my experience with ID2 a 20" monitor is not large enough for efficient DTP tasks with today's pallet heavy programs. While this does not eleminate the iMac from being used for these tasks like a 15" or 17" monitor did it does not make it an ideal computer for doing them either. I think that a good Quark user could still work comfortably on a 20" monitor, especially a wide screen one, but if you use ID a lot then a larger monitor is really needed or you spend too much time zooming in and out (That bieng said, I still use a 8+ year old 20" CRT at work). Also to fight Adobe's "Bloat" and guard against speed for the next 2+ years that the computer will be in service you really do need the fastest processor that you can afford.
Where I work we have 10 Designer's, 1 Color Correction Specialist, and 30-40 Production Artists on site with another 3 Designers and more Production Artists (not sure of the number) at satelite offices. We tend to upgrade computers in a 3-4 year cycle. For the most part at our office we tend to get 3 high end PowerMacs for the Design department, one going to the Color Correction Specialist, and the others going to the two Designers that are most knowlagable in Photoshop and tend to work on the largetst sized files. The Production Department gets a few high-end PM's for creating PDF's (2-4). The other 26-36 computers are typically the low end models, with maybe a few mid range thrown in. These could possibly be iMacs, but again a 20" monitor becomes small really quickly with a pallet heavy program such as ID CS2 which means that for efficiency you really want a larger monitor.
What I would hope to see in the coming months:[list=1][*]Mac Mini: $499 entry model CoreDuo at 1.86 Ghz[*]iMac: starting price $999 or $1099, slight speed boost with a second generation chip.[*]Mac (Mac Tower, Cube2, whatever): $1299-1699, higher end chip than the iMac but comperable speeds, 2 expansion slots, 4-8 RAM slots.[*]Mac Pro: $1999-4000 (or even more) A real Heavy Hitter with all the bells and wistles in 3 configurations + lots of BTO options.[/list=1]
What I would really hate to see Apple do is to ignore the $1000-2000 Headless market and relying on the iMac to fit everyone's needs who would purchase a computer in this range. I think that this should be more powerfull but at similar price points to an iMac so that it is a fairly easy comparison, for $1299 you can get eiter:[list=a][*]2 Ghz iMac 17" (hopefully better, jut samples here) with built in monitor....OR[*]Mac miniTower 2.33 Ghz[/list=a]
You do realize that the iMac Core Duo allows for external monitors, including spanning, via DVI, i.e. with no quality loss? It's not enough for a 30-inch display because it's not dual-link, but seriously, 1680x1050 plus another 1920x1200 ought to be enough for even the most complex of page layouts.
...I wonder if they were able to squeeze in another drive bay. I'd love to see at least 3 (minimum for RAID-5)
RAID-5 would be nice, and would be the primary sensible argument for three drive bays. RAID 0 or RAID 1 with the two drive bays now is okay, RAID-5 support in Mac OS X would be good. OS X would have to support rebuilding data in the event of a failure and have some intelligent reporting of which drive went down, so you'd replace it, then OS X would rebuild. It would also need to report if you lost any data...?
Anything more and you're definitely looking at external storage, which you'd have to do for backups anyway.
The thing is though, let's say you run RAID 0 with 2 drive bays only, then just SuperDuper the hard disk to fast FW400 external drives. In the event of a failure, just reformat your RAID 0, and restore a pristine backup.
Running RAID 5 or other fault-tolerant stuff on the PowerMac/ Mac Pro, I'm not sure about the quality of the RAID solution in rebuilding the data.
Creative pros are usually obsessive, so a clean dump back of the latest complete system would be a confident restoration of data on the Mac Pro should one or two of your hard disks go.
Come to think of it, for a desktop solution, I'm not sure 3 or more drive bays make sense.
No, it's a terrible idea. This "Mac" would not only be a hugely confusing brand name ("What do you have?" ?_"A Mac" ?_"Oh, you mean like, the platform? Or the model? Or??"); it would also severely eat into the iMac's sales, because it would inevitably be priced at the exact same levels. Apple's mid-range desktop is an all-in-one. Deal with it.
I'm sorry but this is a BS argument, the idea is to attract new consumers to your platform, and to do this Apple will have to make computes that meet more people's needs and desires. A Mac sale is a Mac sale, it doesn't matter whether it is an AIO or a headless, what matters is that it is a Mac and not a Dell. Apple may have to adjust their inventory on certain models throughout the life cycle but they have to do this anyway. As long as the profit margin on a similarly priced headless and AIO are the same then Apple makes the same amount of money on both models so it shouldn't matter to them which one sells as long as the new choices help to grow their market share, thus increasing their profitability.
To reinforce my statement, going for 4 hard drive bays is just not going to happen. Sure you can run some interesting fault-tolerant RAID assuming OS X supports it.
Firstly though, RAID handling would need to be shifted off the OS to hardware for the more complex RAID types for maximum performance, AFAIK.
Secondly, how fast and how big your storage in the Mac Pro is not going to be the most important thing in a "workstation-class" computer. You also need to consider how you get data off your machine onto the network/ external storage for backups. And how you get your data back on restore. Given FW800 not that popular, calls for eSATA since it performs better than FW400 are very valid.
So, run a fast RAID0 with two hard disks on your main Mac Pro, and then eSATA out for backups. Three or four hard disks within the case itself is overkill, and unnecessary expense of heat, power, cost.
You want more "workstation-class" storage? Go XServeRAID with a PCIExpress fibrechannel card.
You do realize that the iMac Core Duo allows for external monitors, including spanning, via DVI, i.e. with no quality loss? It's not enough for a 30-inch display because it's not dual-link, but seriously, 1680x1050 plus another 1920x1200 ought to be enough for even the most complex of page layouts.
Yea, but that is also an additional expense and another product you need to get approval to purchase, more desktop realestate taken up, and additional time getting used to using a dual monitor set-up if you are not used to it.
For home, for the first time since it's release, I would not consider anything other than an iMac for my next computer purchase. Sure I would like to see the "chin" go away for esthetic reasons, but it offers everything I want in a home computer. I think that the 17" wide screen is great for most tasks, and I could use it to do work at home on. It may not be ideal for page layout, but it would work for limited use. If I can afford it I will get a 20" model.
However, for efficiency at work, in my experience a 20" monitor is not big enough to keep all the pallets open that your regularly use in InDesign without some of them getting in the way of the document that you are working on which leads to opening and closing pallets, hunting for them, more zooming and panning to do the work. This is not time that is easily calculated but it does increase the time spent doing the work by a second here, a few there, and so one which adds up through out the day and week to a good amount of lost productivity. This is just my opinion, but most people I know who use InDesign on a regular basis agree with me that a 20" monitor is too small to effectivly use the program.
A Mac sale is a Mac sale, it doesn't matter whether it is an AIO or a headless,
Apple is in for revenues (duh), and AIO provides for higher revenues. How, you ask?
Well, for one, they can sell the entire thing (the iMac) at a higher prices than they could a headless, because there's less competition in that segment, so consumers will have less comparison, so they'll have less of a chance of pointing out (and/or choosing) an alternative product that's more affordable ?_there likely isn't any. (In fact, the same is the case for the Mac mini. The only halfway serious Mac mini competitor is the creatively named MiniPC, which is actually more expensive and has lower specs.)
But more importantly, an AIO provides for higher revenues because it is purchased more frequently. Hard drive, screen, optical drive or CPU not good enough for the customer any more? Rather than upgrade one or multiple components, they're more likely to simply get a complete new computer.
RAID-5 would be nice, and would be the primary sensible argument for three drive bays. RAID 0 or RAID 1 with the two drive bays now is okay, RAID-5 support in Mac OS X would be good. OS X would have to support rebuilding data in the event of a failure and have some intelligent reporting of which drive went down, so you'd replace it, then OS X would rebuild. It would also need to report if you lost any data...?[/B]
Isn't there already a software RAID-5 system in BSD-land? Adjust the code, add a preference item, a notifier and it should be good. Linux and Windows both have software RAID-5 options, I don't see why Apple should leave it out, but I do see that storage needs are increasing.
There is a reporter for S.M.A.R.T. for OS X, I don't think it would be hard to use the idea for notification.
Quote:
Come to think of it, for a desktop solution, I'm not sure 3 or more drive bays make sense.
It's a workstation, not a desktop. Name me another workstation (or desktop, if you must) that is as large as the Powermac G5 but only has two drive slots.
Quote:
You want more "workstation-class" storage? Go XServeRAID with a PCIExpress fibrechannel card.
That's not a complete solution, and it nearly triples the cost of the system (several thousand for XSR vs. sub-$1k for several drives). XServeRAID is enterprise-class, not workstation-class, leaving a major cost and storage gap in between two drives and seven.
Four USB ports, two of which are 1.1 and on the keyboard?
Come on...I know pros use Firewire, but they also use USB 2.0.
You misread the story. The story says four USB 2.0 ports, three on the back, one on the front.
Quote:
Originally posted by demenas
I don't think power supplies generate a lot of heat. CPUs and Graphics cards do. And hard drives.
Desktop hard drives only consume about 15W max. CPUs and grahic cards do consume a lot of power.
Power supplies do generate a lot of heat, about 1/3rd of the entire system draw. Assuming a 70% conversion efficiency, and assuming what's inside the rest of the system is consuming 500W, the power supply has to consume 215W to supply that 500W.
Quote:
Originally posted by VL-Tone
What I would like as a replacement for the PowerMacs from Apple at WWDC is plain and simple: Let's call them the TowerMac and TowerMac Pro.
Let's drop the Tower. There are already trademark filings for Mac Pro, and none of them we've seen include "Tower" in the name. It's an unnecessary addendum to a name that works fine without it.
Welcome to the 2000s, where the line between the two has become so blurred as to become meaningless.
It's a desktop.
One doesn't put Xeons in a "desktop". Same goes for multiple processor sockets. The I/O capabilities of the PowerMac line are also in the range of workstations (PCI-X vs. just PCI, several PCIe slots with more than 1 lane). The none of the conventional desktops I've seen accept ECC memory, I've tried.
Comments
Originally posted by Messiah
I think we'll see a 'Mac' and a 'Mac Pro'.
I think this actually makes a lot of sense, there's already the mac MINI so Apple should add two more headless macs: mac (BLANK) and mac PRO.....great idea!!!
Originally posted by Messiah
I think we'll see a 'Mac' and a 'Mac Pro'.
In the old days, DTP operators were most certainly 'Pro' users. They required the fastest machine available and added Adobe Certified graphics accelerators with crazy amounts of VRAM so that they could drive their massive 21" CRTs at millions of colours.
Today, most CS2 users needs are met by an iMac or an entry level uni-processor G5. The majority of studios I visit have a mixture of G4 MDDs and 1.6GHz G5s. The most up to date piece of kit I have seen to date was a DC 2GHz G5 with a 20" ACD ? and every single member of staff creamed themselves over it.
Most studios buy the basic 'Pro' machine and run it for three years without ever opening the case once.
So, I don't think that todays definition of 'Pro' includes CS2 users. Instead, 'Pro' includes those involved in video production, render meisters, scientific applications and clusters leveraging racks full of Xserves.
A basic headless 'Mac' that could drive the ACDs would satisfy a lot of users needs, whilst a 'Mac Pro' could focus on users that require multiple graphics cards running at full pelt, multiple optical drives, hardware RAID running on 3+ drive mechanisms, multiple ethernet ports, etc. etc.
A powerful little 'Mac' and a full-on 'Mac Pro' workstation would make an awesome combination that would keep everyone happy.
I would agree with most of what you say, but in my experience with ID2 a 20" monitor is not large enough for efficient DTP tasks with today's pallet heavy programs. While this does not eleminate the iMac from being used for these tasks like a 15" or 17" monitor did it does not make it an ideal computer for doing them either. I think that a good Quark user could still work comfortably on a 20" monitor, especially a wide screen one, but if you use ID a lot then a larger monitor is really needed or you spend too much time zooming in and out (That bieng said, I still use a 8+ year old 20" CRT at work). Also to fight Adobe's "Bloat" and guard against speed for the next 2+ years that the computer will be in service you really do need the fastest processor that you can afford.
Where I work we have 10 Designer's, 1 Color Correction Specialist, and 30-40 Production Artists on site with another 3 Designers and more Production Artists (not sure of the number) at satelite offices. We tend to upgrade computers in a 3-4 year cycle. For the most part at our office we tend to get 3 high end PowerMacs for the Design department, one going to the Color Correction Specialist, and the others going to the two Designers that are most knowlagable in Photoshop and tend to work on the largetst sized files. The Production Department gets a few high-end PM's for creating PDF's (2-4). The other 26-36 computers are typically the low end models, with maybe a few mid range thrown in. These could possibly be iMacs, but again a 20" monitor becomes small really quickly with a pallet heavy program such as ID CS2 which means that for efficiency you really want a larger monitor.
What I would hope to see in the coming months:[list=1][*]Mac Mini: $499 entry model CoreDuo at 1.86 Ghz[*]iMac: starting price $999 or $1099, slight speed boost with a second generation chip.[*]Mac (Mac Tower, Cube2, whatever): $1299-1699, higher end chip than the iMac but comperable speeds, 2 expansion slots, 4-8 RAM slots.[*]Mac Pro: $1999-4000 (or even more) A real Heavy Hitter with all the bells and wistles in 3 configurations + lots of BTO options.[/list=1]
What I would really hate to see Apple do is to ignore the $1000-2000 Headless market and relying on the iMac to fit everyone's needs who would purchase a computer in this range. I think that this should be more powerfull but at similar price points to an iMac so that it is a fairly easy comparison, for $1299 you can get eiter:[list=a][*]2 Ghz iMac 17" (hopefully better, jut samples here) with built in monitor....OR[*]Mac miniTower 2.33 Ghz[/list=a]
...I wonder if they were able to squeeze in another drive bay. I'd love to see at least 3 (minimum for RAID-5)
RAID-5 would be nice, and would be the primary sensible argument for three drive bays. RAID 0 or RAID 1 with the two drive bays now is okay, RAID-5 support in Mac OS X would be good. OS X would have to support rebuilding data in the event of a failure and have some intelligent reporting of which drive went down, so you'd replace it, then OS X would rebuild. It would also need to report if you lost any data...?
Anything more and you're definitely looking at external storage, which you'd have to do for backups anyway.
The thing is though, let's say you run RAID 0 with 2 drive bays only, then just SuperDuper the hard disk to fast FW400 external drives. In the event of a failure, just reformat your RAID 0, and restore a pristine backup.
Running RAID 5 or other fault-tolerant stuff on the PowerMac/ Mac Pro, I'm not sure about the quality of the RAID solution in rebuilding the data.
Creative pros are usually obsessive, so a clean dump back of the latest complete system would be a confident restoration of data on the Mac Pro should one or two of your hard disks go.
Come to think of it, for a desktop solution, I'm not sure 3 or more drive bays make sense.
Originally posted by Chucker
No, it's a terrible idea. This "Mac" would not only be a hugely confusing brand name ("What do you have?" ?_"A Mac" ?_"Oh, you mean like, the platform? Or the model? Or??"); it would also severely eat into the iMac's sales, because it would inevitably be priced at the exact same levels. Apple's mid-range desktop is an all-in-one. Deal with it.
I'm sorry but this is a BS argument, the idea is to attract new consumers to your platform, and to do this Apple will have to make computes that meet more people's needs and desires. A Mac sale is a Mac sale, it doesn't matter whether it is an AIO or a headless, what matters is that it is a Mac and not a Dell. Apple may have to adjust their inventory on certain models throughout the life cycle but they have to do this anyway. As long as the profit margin on a similarly priced headless and AIO are the same then Apple makes the same amount of money on both models so it shouldn't matter to them which one sells as long as the new choices help to grow their market share, thus increasing their profitability.
Firstly though, RAID handling would need to be shifted off the OS to hardware for the more complex RAID types for maximum performance, AFAIK.
Secondly, how fast and how big your storage in the Mac Pro is not going to be the most important thing in a "workstation-class" computer. You also need to consider how you get data off your machine onto the network/ external storage for backups. And how you get your data back on restore. Given FW800 not that popular, calls for eSATA since it performs better than FW400 are very valid.
So, run a fast RAID0 with two hard disks on your main Mac Pro, and then eSATA out for backups. Three or four hard disks within the case itself is overkill, and unnecessary expense of heat, power, cost.
You want more "workstation-class" storage? Go XServeRAID with a PCIExpress fibrechannel card.
Originally posted by Chucker
You do realize that the iMac Core Duo allows for external monitors, including spanning, via DVI, i.e. with no quality loss? It's not enough for a 30-inch display because it's not dual-link, but seriously, 1680x1050 plus another 1920x1200 ought to be enough for even the most complex of page layouts.
Yea, but that is also an additional expense and another product you need to get approval to purchase, more desktop realestate taken up, and additional time getting used to using a dual monitor set-up if you are not used to it.
For home, for the first time since it's release, I would not consider anything other than an iMac for my next computer purchase. Sure I would like to see the "chin" go away for esthetic reasons, but it offers everything I want in a home computer. I think that the 17" wide screen is great for most tasks, and I could use it to do work at home on. It may not be ideal for page layout, but it would work for limited use. If I can afford it I will get a 20" model.
However, for efficiency at work, in my experience a 20" monitor is not big enough to keep all the pallets open that your regularly use in InDesign without some of them getting in the way of the document that you are working on which leads to opening and closing pallets, hunting for them, more zooming and panning to do the work. This is not time that is easily calculated but it does increase the time spent doing the work by a second here, a few there, and so one which adds up through out the day and week to a good amount of lost productivity. This is just my opinion, but most people I know who use InDesign on a regular basis agree with me that a 20" monitor is too small to effectivly use the program.
Originally posted by @homenow
A Mac sale is a Mac sale, it doesn't matter whether it is an AIO or a headless,
Apple is in for revenues (duh), and AIO provides for higher revenues. How, you ask?
Well, for one, they can sell the entire thing (the iMac) at a higher prices than they could a headless, because there's less competition in that segment, so consumers will have less comparison, so they'll have less of a chance of pointing out (and/or choosing) an alternative product that's more affordable ?_there likely isn't any. (In fact, the same is the case for the Mac mini. The only halfway serious Mac mini competitor is the creatively named MiniPC, which is actually more expensive and has lower specs.)
But more importantly, an AIO provides for higher revenues because it is purchased more frequently. Hard drive, screen, optical drive or CPU not good enough for the customer any more? Rather than upgrade one or multiple components, they're more likely to simply get a complete new computer.
Originally posted by @homenow
Yea, but that is also an additional expense and another product you need to get approval to purchase,
How is that different from buying a headless Mac plus an external monitor?
more desktop realestate taken up,
True.
In a move that is somewhat reminiscent of recent Windows PC designs
NOT GOOD..... do not copy pee sea designs.
And furthermore they need a new case design the current g5 case is to damn big!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0.2 and one half cents cha ching.
It shows the more common old-style power receptacle with the lower two corners beveled,
whereas my Quad G5 has the newer-style with all square corners.
Originally posted by Catman4d2
NOT GOOD..... do not copy pee sea designs.
And furthermore they need a new case design the current g5 case is to damn big!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0.2 and one half cents cha ching.
Originally posted by sunilraman
RAID-5 would be nice, and would be the primary sensible argument for three drive bays. RAID 0 or RAID 1 with the two drive bays now is okay, RAID-5 support in Mac OS X would be good. OS X would have to support rebuilding data in the event of a failure and have some intelligent reporting of which drive went down, so you'd replace it, then OS X would rebuild. It would also need to report if you lost any data...?[/B]
Isn't there already a software RAID-5 system in BSD-land? Adjust the code, add a preference item, a notifier and it should be good. Linux and Windows both have software RAID-5 options, I don't see why Apple should leave it out, but I do see that storage needs are increasing.
There is a reporter for S.M.A.R.T. for OS X, I don't think it would be hard to use the idea for notification.
Come to think of it, for a desktop solution, I'm not sure 3 or more drive bays make sense.
It's a workstation, not a desktop. Name me another workstation (or desktop, if you must) that is as large as the Powermac G5 but only has two drive slots.
Quote:
You want more "workstation-class" storage? Go XServeRAID with a PCIExpress fibrechannel card.
That's not a complete solution, and it nearly triples the cost of the system (several thousand for XSR vs. sub-$1k for several drives). XServeRAID is enterprise-class, not workstation-class, leaving a major cost and storage gap in between two drives and seven.
Originally posted by satchmo
Four USB ports, two of which are 1.1 and on the keyboard?
Come on...I know pros use Firewire, but they also use USB 2.0.
You misread the story. The story says four USB 2.0 ports, three on the back, one on the front.
Originally posted by demenas
I don't think power supplies generate a lot of heat. CPUs and Graphics cards do. And hard drives.
Desktop hard drives only consume about 15W max. CPUs and grahic cards do consume a lot of power.
Power supplies do generate a lot of heat, about 1/3rd of the entire system draw. Assuming a 70% conversion efficiency, and assuming what's inside the rest of the system is consuming 500W, the power supply has to consume 215W to supply that 500W.
Originally posted by VL-Tone
What I would like as a replacement for the PowerMacs from Apple at WWDC is plain and simple: Let's call them the TowerMac and TowerMac Pro.
Let's drop the Tower. There are already trademark filings for Mac Pro, and none of them we've seen include "Tower" in the name. It's an unnecessary addendum to a name that works fine without it.
Originally posted by JeffDM
It's a workstation, not a desktop.
Welcome to the 2000s, where the line between the two has become so blurred as to become meaningless.
It's a desktop.
Originally posted by Chucker
Welcome to the 2000s, where the line between the two has become so blurred as to become meaningless.
It's a desktop.
One doesn't put Xeons in a "desktop". Same goes for multiple processor sockets. The I/O capabilities of the PowerMac line are also in the range of workstations (PCI-X vs. just PCI, several PCIe slots with more than 1 lane). The none of the conventional desktops I've seen accept ECC memory, I've tried.
Originally posted by demenas
Most high-end PCs now come with Dual Gigabit.
Steve
Er...doesn't the current Powermac?
Originally posted by JeffDM
One doesn't put Xeons in a "desktop". Same goes for multiple processor sockets.
What's next, "One doesn't put multi-core CPUs in a laptop"? Oh wait, been done. How is this different, again?
The I/O capabilities of the PowerMac line are also in the range of workstations.
What about them? The lack of eSATA? The lack of SCSI? The lack of SAS? Or of FiberChannel?
Originally posted by Placebo
Er...doesn't the current Powermac?
Yep.
Dual 10/100/1000BASE-T (Gigabit) Ethernet ports