talkingheadguy

AppleInsider said:

But, Apple cut a big corner in the device's on-board storage to reduce the price to $1,299 -- and we feel that it shouldn't have. If you own the 2016, you have at least 256GB of storage. We feel that the 128GB is a big step backwards for those considering the 2017 who already own a 2016.

This comment is unfair and misleading.  Apple did reduce the price of the base unit by reducing the storage of that machine, but it retains the 256GB model at the same $1499 price as last year and with significantly higher specs.  Apple didn't cut any corners.  They offered a lower-priced option while keeping the rest of the structure intact.  This is a non-issue. 

johnbear said:

back in december I built a hackintosh that was 30% faster in FCPX then the best they had at BestBuy which I tested, and considerably cheaper. The downside of a hackintosh is that it takes a little more time in maintenance and requires a little more research to build and understand how it works.

Yeah, and the other downside to Hackintoshes is that they're, um, illegal.  Just because you download an antique bootlegged OS X from the internet doesn't mean that Apple has abandoned its copyrights and patents. 

dws-2 said:

I think this article misunderstands science, which is a way of investigating the world, rather than a producer of facts. Science tells us that wireless signals won't likely harm us from ionizing radiation. However, that's not the same thing as wireless signals being harmless. Science can only tell us about things that we've investigated. That's why it's so interesting — because we're always learning new things. That said, you have to pick what you're going to worry about, and wireless signals is pretty low on my list.

Yours is a typical argument made by non-scientists. "We need to worry about it because -- who knows?" It's pure scare-mongering of the sort that the anti-vaxxers use. Even if you subscribe to the idea that there may be some undiscovered X-factor out there that will cause a yet-unknown condition, you can always turn to the epidemiological studies. There is no measurable difference in the health between those who live closer to RF fields and those who live far away. The world is filled with actual dangers that are actual health and safety risks. But RF is not among them. Why not instead spend your energy working on real issues that have demonstrable cause and effect? You're trying to stomp imaginary ants while you're surrounded by elephants.

sflocal said:

emig647 said:

I bought a 2019 Mac Pro - dual x5700, 64gb, afterburner, and 8 core (with intents to upgrade it to 24 core later). I also bought a XDR display. I knew the event was coming and bought within 12 days of the event. I honestly didn’t anticipate the new MBP being able to keep pace on 8k editing in Davinci Resolve and rendering in Cinema4d. I took it back and kept the XDR. The machine was a powerhouse, was sexy and honestly the coolest Apple product I owned in 25 years. But also comparing a $13k machine to a $3.5k machine that does about 98% of the performance, I couldn’t justify the price difference for my case. I can’t wait for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. 

This.

The Intel-based Mac Pro is essentially dead imho.  I don't see how the math could be made to work to justify a Mac Pro knowing how AS is performing.  It's not necessarily a function of evolution in technology per-se, but Intel's inability to step up and perform.  It's embarrassing really how bad Intel looks right now.  Intel is the Titanic that is continuing on without knowing they crashed into the ASi Iceberg.  

Even though I'm years away from buying a new desktop Mac, after seeing what the new MBP's are doing on the performance bench, I'm super-excited to see what Apple does with the iMac and Mac Pro using ASi.  With larger footprints for better cooling and larger chips, I'm expecting them to be serious Intel-killers.

It's not just that the Intel Mac Pro that's dead. The entire X86 platform is about to enter assisted living. The platform is decades beyond its expiration date and that company has done nothing, really, to keep their platform modern. And AMD Ryzen also. Soon, all the PC chip makers will be switching over to ARM, and will pretend that they're the innovators. In five or seven years, you'll be hard pressed to find an X86 PC at Best Buy.

yonis said:

Here's my attempt:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/CcC3QV

Couple of tradeoffs I needed to make:

1. Workstation graphics inflate cost tremendously, so I replaced with 2 1080 Tis in SLI. They're good at different things, but I figure doubling up on the 1080 Tis would more or less make up the difference.
2. Thunderbolt 3 isn't necessary if you have PCI Express.

Nice build.  I'm a fan of ASRock and particularly the X99 MB.  A couple of questions:

1. No speakers?  The iMac Pro will have a nice set built in.  What would you recommend for your build?
2. With those two 1080s, do you have enough cooling?
3. The Hyper 212 EVO is a nice CPU cooler generally, but is it enough for the Xeon?  Wouldn't you be better off with liquid cooling?
   

I've been a Mac user since 1986, but enjoy building PCs because, well, it's fun. But for actual productivity, I use a Mac because it has a better OS and simply works without causing headaches.  However, even putting the OS aside, it's unfair to think that any DIY computer is comparable to a Mac because DIYs always have higher support costs and probably higher maintenance overall.  If a manager is going to buy 20 computers for an office, she's not going to buy a truckload of individual components.  She's going to buy 20 fully-assembled machines. All of the parts have been heavily researched and tested together, and IT support will be manageable and affordable.