[sigkill-9]

I'm a college student in a web development program and I use macs regularly at school so I am fairly familiar with the O/S and the machines, although we are using older G5's.
The reason I'm here is because I need to get a mac desktop but I'm unsure what specifications would be best suited for my needs and was hoping someone here could tell me which version of mac pro would be faster/better.

I will be Installing/using Final Cut Pro, DreamWeaver, Photoshop CS4, PHP5, Unix, Flash CS3, and a few other web related development programs that I cant think of rite now. I may do some gaming as well.

I went to apple.com and assembled two versions of the Mac Pro, here are the specs of both of them:

CPU: Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
RAM: 8GB (4x2GB)
HDD: 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
VIDEO: ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
DVD: Two 18x SuperDrives
Apple Wireless Keyboard
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
PRICE: $3,879.00

CPU: One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
RAM: 8GB (4x2GB)
HDD: 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
VIDEO: ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
DVD: Two 18x SuperDrives
Apple Wireless Keyboard
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
$3,729.00

The prices are similar, but the CPU speeds differ quite a bit. Is an eight core 2.26Ghz setup going to out perform a quad core 2.97Ghz setup? Which setup would be best suited for my needs?

Thanks in advance.

[sigkill-9]

*** bump ***

[mduell]

Don't take memory/hard drive upgrades from Apple; for less than the price of their upgrades you can buy the same parts. Take the stock 3x1GB from Apple and upgrade the memory yourself. Take the stock hard drive an add another larger or faster one yourself when you need space/speed.

I'd say go with 4 cores (most software isn't that well multithreaded, even with Grand Hype), and the 2.93 is not a good value over the 2.66. The 4870 is a good idea for gaming or FCP (I assume Apple will update it to make more use of the GPU).

That's $2644 plus about $150 for 4x2GB memory.

[SierraDragon]

Towers typically have ~4-year lives, and IMO folks configuring new MPs should plan accordingly. That means looking at OS 10.6 Snow Leopard and its likely effect on the late 2009-2013 world of the pro apps you listed. When I do that I foresee apps taking dramatic advantage of lots of RAM, GPU power and competent multiprocessing.

Buy RAM for new MPs in 3-slot groups not 4-slot groups. Personally at this point I might buy 3x4GB because I expect to want maximum RAM down the road, but 3x4GB modules do cost twice as much as 6x2GB so it may make sense to buy 6x2GB. IMO buying 3x2GB would be inappropriate, but if you bought an 8-core and it came with the 6x1GB Apple provides you could certainly live with 6 GB RAM until the price of third party 4-GB sized DIMMs falls.

Mark is correct that multi-threading currently is not generally well implemented. However at this point I would still go for the 8 cores because of my OS 10.6 expectations for 2010 and beyond. If I did buy 4-core I definitely would not pay $500 for the 10% 2.66 GHz to 2.93 GHz processor speed bump.

Yes as of today the 4870 card is best choice, but keep an eye on BareFeats.com for GPU test results in case a better-value GPU is available by the time you buy.

Join the Apple developer group as a student developer and check out the hardware discount that you may be able to receive. A substantial hardware discount is likely that may well affect what box is best value, and you will receive regular OS upgrades that more than cover the small cost to join.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

I think holding on to a computer for more than 3 years is too long; they're still advancing too quickly. Spend 70% of your 5 year budget every 3 years and you'll have faster computer averaged over time.

The 3-module vs 4-module debate is about bandwidth vs capacity. Unless you're a scientific computing user (or similar) who knows that your applications are sensitive to memory bandwidth, go with the extra capacity.

Agree the price of 4GB modules will crater in the next year.

8-core is great if you're regularly hammering the CPUs at 100% for minutes or hours at a time (and your app is well threaded, a large caveat even years down the road). It doesn't sound like the OP will be.

[hmurchison2001]

Let's be honest here. You are running media apps and you want them to all up and running so that you can bounce amongst them.

Here's what I would say would be a great Mac Pro for media.

1. Get and 8-core system. In Final Cut Studio when you go to prepare your files using Compressor it will peg every single processor

Pro Apps on Nehalem Mac Pro - Cores? Memory? (note the small difference between 8x 2.26Ghz and 8x 2.93Ghz. Quad cores definitely fall off)

2. Get more RAM than 8GB. Buy it via a third party and shoot for that 12GB mark.

3. Consider shelling out for a 80 or 160GB SSD for your boot drive. Intel is the safest choice. You're looking at $360 for the 80GB and roughly twice that for the 160.

4. Do you really need two optical drives? A common thing for Mac Pro owners to do is use the SATA connection and place the SSD in the optical bay. This leave the 4 tray for HDD. Avantages you can create a large RAID-0 config for scratch disc for speed or RAID-1 for mirroring and still have two more bays left over for whatever you want. see Macintosh Performance Guide: How to make your Mac feel lighting-fast

5. Thank your lucky stars that Snow Leopard is coming- Here's the performance of the Snow Leopard Server
Apple - Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard - Performance the standard Snow Leopard client should be just as fast. What Apple has done is optimized the whole OS but also worked on the threading model so even if your apps aren't explicitly supporting Grand Central Dispatch you will "still" benefit because so many of the processes are threaded more efficiently.

So in summary

8-core is a must
More RAM
Faster boot drive (important)
Snow Leopard

BTW there's a new Final Cut Studio coming out that may require Snow Leopard because of the 64-bit and threading. Stay tuned on that.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I think holding on to a computer for more than 3 years is too long; they're still advancing too quickly. Spend 70% of your 5 year budget every 3 years and you'll have faster computer averaged over time.

Theoretically that is about right, but I find that in a heavy (no video) graphics workflow the workflow has its own inertia, and as long as it remains working well there is little incentive to spend money and upgrade. For instance the 2.66 GHz 2006 MP continues to support a very competent CS and Aperture workflow and will do so into 2010, no problem. Limitations are primarily in mass storage throughput and (cheaply upgradable) graphics card support rather than in overall system architecture.

Video users for sure will benefit at 3 year turnarounds but for many folks high end well configured MPs are strong enough that they can postpone the costs of setup change to 4 years or even 5. Of course, folks who start out with compromised boxes like iMacs (or MPs like the quad-core with serious RAM limitations) will always be forced into earlier upgrade cycles.

The prospect of Snow Leopard really enthuses me and IMO will at some point create reasons for many folks to early-upgrade when the confluence of a fully 64-bit OS, cheap RAM, app revisions, powerful GPUs, and OS 10.6 fully implements.

IMO the RAM limitation of the quad-core MP makes that box a poor choice.

-Allen Wicks

[Hinson]

Another consideration...

I bought AppleCare protection on my last two Macs. I was hesitant on the first one, but not on the second a few years later. Both times it paid off--1st with a video card failure and 2nd with a lighting strike (1st year) and a video card failure (3rd year).

What do others think about the extra 2 years of coverage for the AppleCare price?


-Jay

[hmurchison2001]

AppleCare = good to me. Anything important should be insured in some manner (auto, home, life, technology)

[SierraDragon]

Take the significantly depreciated average value of the hardware during years 2 and 3 and compare it to the cost of AppleCare and how frequently one expects really expensive covered failures during years 2 and 3.

Note that year one when most failures occur is not relevant as are infrequent anecdotal experiences.

-Allen Wicks

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Theoretically that is about right, but I find that in a heavy (no video) graphics workflow the workflow has its own inertia, and as long as it remains working well there is little incentive to spend money and upgrade. For instance the 2.66 GHz 2006 MP continues to support a very competent CS and Aperture workflow and will do so into 2010, no problem. Limitations are primarily in mass storage throughput and (cheaply upgradable) graphics card support rather than in overall system architecture.

Video users for sure will benefit at 3 year turnarounds but for many folks high end well configured MPs are strong enough that they can postpone the costs of setup change to 4 years or even 5. Of course, folks who start out with compromised boxes like iMacs (or MPs like the quad-core with serious RAM limitations) will always be forced into earlier upgrade cycles.

My point was that with the same average annual spend, you're better off on a 3 year upgrade cycle than 5.
Consider buying the original Mac Pro on release day: $2500 for 4x2.66Ghz and upgrading to Nehalem today, or $3600 for 4x3.0Ghz+extra 2GB RAM and not upgrading for another 2 years.

Originally Posted by Hinson 

I bought AppleCare protection on my last two Macs. I was hesitant on the first one, but not on the second a few years later. Both times it paid off--1st with a video card failure and 2nd with a lighting strike (1st year) and a video card failure (3rd year).

What do others think about the extra 2 years of coverage for the AppleCare price?

Poor buy; most credit cards cover year 2 anyway. So you're looking at the price of AppleCare now vs a new part in year 3. The failure rate of the expensive parts (logic board mostly) just isn't high enough to make the expected value work out. And if something like a hard drive or video card fails, you can get a better one for less than the price of AC.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

My point was that with the same average annual spend, you're better off on a 3 year upgrade cycle than 5. Consider buying the original Mac Pro on release day: $2500 for 4x2.66Ghz and upgrading to Nehalem today, or $3600 for 4x3.0Ghz+extra 2GB RAM and not upgrading for another 2 years.

Good example, except that the 3-year-old 2.66 GHz box mentioned still works very, very well for Aperture and the entire Adobe CS Design Premium Suite, and will easily continue to do so for another year or two. That is a total of 4-5 years easily. At this point in time (with the 2.66 GHz box 3 years old) a 2009 Nehalem box would provide very little value add; not even enough to defray the non-hardware costs of moving to a new box. Better to put the money into RAM, hard drives setup and the latest graphics card (e.g. a 2009 MP is limited to the same 32 GB RAM as is a 2006 MP).

Pro video and/or 3D would be a different analysis.

I do not however ascribe to 4-5 years as somehow absolute. In reality the optimum upgrade cycle is 2-6 years, depending... Over the last decade Mac hardware gains outstripped software/OS gains, making for inordinately long useful hardware lives. However IMO we are poised for a quantum jump in software/OS gains that likely will for a time change that. Transparent multi-threading (agreed still in the developing stage today) and full 64-bit competence of OS/apps/hardware combined with cheap RAM will again shorten useful hardware lives. Soon.

Note that in the comments above I reference mass storage as a separate issue from "hardware" per se. When I referenced hardware I was referring to the overall box architecture, mostly because MP hard drives and GPUs have been typically upgradable independent of the box.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Poor buy; most credit cards cover year 2 anyway. So you're looking at the price of AppleCare now vs a new part in year 3. The failure rate of the expensive parts (logic board mostly) just isn't high enough to make the expected value work out. And if something like a hard drive or video card fails, you can get a better one for less than the price of AC.

Very well stated!

-Allen Wicks

[bearcatrp]

I would suggest you save some cash and buy a 2.8 8 core mac pro refurb for $2399.00. You get the same warrenty as new. Then upgrade it to fit your needs. These are plenty fast for what you need to do. Go check out the benchmarks comparing these and the new ones. As posted before, NEVER buy extra ram or disks from apple. To expensive. Check out OWC or other places to save money. Good luck on whatever you decide.

[Hinson]

Originally Posted by mduell 

...
Poor buy; most credit cards cover year 2 anyway. So you're looking at the price of AppleCare now vs a new part in year 3. The failure rate of the expensive parts (logic board mostly) just isn't high enough to make the expected value work out. And if something like a hard drive or video card fails, you can get a better one for less than the price of AC.

Hmmm... Interesting point. I've always been leery of the extended warranty for the usual reasons (do you really expect a major failure? is it worth the cost just for peace of mind?). I figured my experiences were unusual (the extended warranty happened to pay off twice in a row).

BUT, do "most" credit cards really double the warranty? I've heard of the benefit, but I thought it was pretty specific to certain cards. What card do you use that gives you 2x warranty?

Thx.


-Jay

[mduell]

Here's a random example I found on Google: Extended Protection
Extended Protection doubles the time period of the original manufacturer’s written U.S. warranty up to one (1) full year on warranties of three (3) years or less up to a maximum of $10,000 per claim.

In Canada too: If the item comes with a manufacturer's warranty, you may be entitled to double the warranty period by up to 12 additional months.

[olePigeon]

I agree with the suggestion to buy Refurbished and upgrade. Often times the refurbished Mac is a new Mac, but because it was opened by a customer and returned, it can no longer be sold as "new."

[SierraDragon]

Agreed, refurbs are often excellent choices. Howevr, like I recommended earlier:
Join the Apple developer group as a student developer and check out the hardware discount that you may be able to receive. A substantial hardware discount is likely that may well affect what box is best value, and you will receive regular OS upgrades that more than cover the small cost to join.

-Allen

[scoobs1969]

8 cores is not a must, especially since very few apps take full advantage of all cores. And touching all cores also means you may only get 500-600% through-put here and there.

Adobe CS4 is still single threaded on most accounts, and even the multi-threaded apps (Lightroom for instance) doesn't even use four cores efficiently. CS5 (photoshop) should be 64-bit, and will likely push GPU processing long before they ever push multi-threads any further. Final Cut Pro pushes the 500% through put on an 8-core system. There are ways to push apps like Lightroom and FCP by feeding those apps multiple batch tasks. But you need well organized multiple tasks to run it efficiently.

The only way I'd ever recommend getting an 8-core machine for a graphics user would be if you're heavy into multi-tasking (running a large batch in photoshop while running both import and export batches in Lightroom, then futzing in Dreamweaver or FCP). But usually there's an linear organizational method to pull it off. If you're not into photography, you likely won't be running large imports or exports in Lightroom while you're processing photos in photoshop.

If you're going to have multiple apps open, then you need more RAM (not more processors), and with that, 12-16GB will suite you well. If you need 24GB or 32GB of ram, you should better have cush jog and be getting paid rather well.

With that, I'd say get a refurbed 2.66GHz quad, at least 12GB of ram (4GB dimms x 3 sticks seems to the the sweet spot for the triple channel memory architecture). SSD? maybe? Extra internal drives? yes! get at least two 1TB drives. one for working live, the other for backing up your work. Or you can strip them into a raid 0, but you're still at the mercy of single threaded open and save issues with most apps. If you go the raid route, then grab an 800FW external drive for your back-up. Upgrade to the ATI if and when you need it (when CS5 comes out).

Get all your RAM and extra hard drives through third party vendors....like: Other World Computing. Same thing with the video cards - use third party vendors.

BTW, there is no such thing as future proofing, since we have no idea what the app developers are working on and which direction they're willing to go. The best bet today is to spend the least amount now, then in 3-4 years buy your next system based on your new needs. ...besides, if your school can get away with teaching their programs with G5's, you'll be flying on the new 2.66 quad core.

A refurbed 2.66GHz quad = $2,150 <---save your money here
A refurbed 2.8GHz 8-core = $2,400 (if you can find one)
A refurbed 2.93GHz quad = $2,550 <----not a significant speed bump over the 2.66GHz quad.
A refurbed 2.26GHz 8-core = $2,800

Check the numbers here: useful benchmarks

Then again, it's your money...spend it like you want.

[Mac Hammer Fan]

I am just curious. How much time does Toast Titanium need to convert a 90 min Quicktime movie into a toast file, ready to burn? Is there a significant difference between the Quad 2,66 and the Octo 2,26? (on my Macbook 2,2 Ghz it takes approx. 90 minutes, on my friend's Imac 2,93 less than an hour)

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

8 cores is not a must, especially since very few apps take full advantage of all cores.

It is not the eight cores per se that are necessary, it is the way the boxes are configured, street cost of the various boxes, RAM slots and the cost of RAM that make the 8-core boxes the only sensible choices among the modern offerings. Recommending a 2009 Quad MP purchase to a graphics user is inappropriate.

If you're going to have multiple apps open, then you need more RAM (not more processors), and with that, 12-16GB will suite you well. With that, I'd say get a refurbed 2.66GHz quad, at least 12GB of ram (4GB dimms x 3 sticks seems to the the sweet spot for the triple channel memory architecture)...

12-16GB will suite well today but a new box starts with tomorrow and lives the 3-4 years of 2010-2013. 12 GB RAM will almost assured be limiting to 2010-2013 graphics apps usage. And one pays an extra $220 for 4 GB-sized DIMMs just to get to that 12 GB number. That extra $220 up front added to the already high price of new Quads makes Quads a bad deal for graphics.

...BTW, there is no such thing as future proofing...

It is not about "future proofing" it is about logical life cycle cost analysis of new purchases. IMO sacrificing cheap RAM upgradability is only justified if the box is comparatively very inexpensive - - like the new Mini, IMO a good choice for many folks. New Quads are definitely not comparatively very inexpensive.

-Allen Wicks

[scoobs1969]

Recommending a 2009 Quad MP purchase to a graphics user is inappropriate.

Totally disagree. Thinking about the NOW (and I'm a graphics user - sans FCP), the quad is the sensible choice, especially for a college student. The assumptions being made are the new apps are going to require more 16GB of ram over the next 3-4 years as well as being rewritten for multitasking. In most workflow environments, 8GB of ram exceeds what most PRO users need right now. Unless the OP is heavy into multitasking, where the extra cores and more than 16GB or RAM is needed, paying "extra" for 4 cores you'll likely never use (and having 16GB of unused RAM slots waiting) in the 3-4 year life cycle of the computer is silly.

That extra $220 up front added to the already high price of new Quads makes Quads a bad deal for graphics.

Not spending an extra $800 on the new octo (2.66 Quad vs. the 2.26 Octo) will pay for the 16GB of ram itself, and allow you put $200 towards a sweet NEC display.

It is not about "future proofing" it is about logical life cycle cost analysis of new purchases.

So you've countered your own position. If the average life cycle of a workstation is 3-4 years, then worrying about what your machine can do 4 years from now is relatively moot since it's going to be replaced. With that in mind, would you rather spend $2,800 on a refurbed octo when a $2,150 refurbed quad will be perfectly apt for the next 3-4 years? OK, so the quad 'may' begin to show signs of duress in the 4th year. LOL But, the new machine the OP will purchase in 2012 will undoubtedly be faster and more upgradeable than the current Octos — of which, again, you're suggesting users are going to replace at that time. It begs the question, "why fret about future proofing or thinking beyond the life cycle of the current line-up? ...If the OP wishes to keep the Machine for 6 or more years, then yes, the octo is "allegedly" a better purchase. "Allegedly" being the key term, because we have no idea what direction the app developers are going to take.

Thanks to Apple's new pricing with the Nehalem machines, this is the new way I'm looking at it.

Octo 4 year turnover:
2008: $2800 (refurbed) + 2012: $2,800 (refurbed speculation) = $5,600

vs.

Quad 4 year turnover:
2008 $2,150 (refurbed) + 2012: $2,150 (refurbed speculation) = $4,300

Extrapolate that 3 to 4 computer purchases and you start to realize; I could really use that extra $5,200 in my pocket.

Again, my suggestion is to pick up the 2.66GHz quad with the upgraded graphics card, and save hundreds of dollars....to put towards your beer fund. LOL

c

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

Totally disagree. Thinking about the NOW (and I'm a graphics user - sans FCP), the quad is the sensible choice, especially for a college student.

Yup, we disagree. IMO for a college desktop box due to cost the Quad is very inappropriate and a Mini is the best (desktop) choice right now at today's pricing. Note that I am not specifically recommending an Octo, but that if one decides that the strength of a tower is necessary today the long life cycle of towers makes the RAM slot limit of the Quad a terrible choice at the price.

The OP could buy a Mini and a Macbook Pro both for the cost of a Quad. Personally for college I would forget the tower and buy a 17" Macbook Pro and use it everywhere. During my last round of grad school I carried a heavy G3 laptop and it was an excellent student tool; the 17" MBP today weighs less than the G3 did and is literally a beast that with the right peripherals could likely meet all needs and also be portable. Only the 17" has matte-display option and an EC slot which allows easy addition of an SSD drive or eSATA external connectivity, so for a desktop replacement IMO only the 17" is appropriate for graphics.

To the OP: remember to add in the cost of large external drives for off-site backup into your hardware budget. Especially in a college environment, bombproof frequent offsite backup is absolutely essential. It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent students have lost major projects, even complete theses, due to inadequate backup.

-Allen Wicks

[scoobs1969]

Wait!

A Mac Mini (4 GB of ram max) and a MacBook Pro (8GB of ram max) is a better choice for a graphics user, even when you stated a quad core mac pro is inappropriate for a graphics user, and 12-16GB of ram is adequate for today, but not for tomorrow. I have to wrap my head around that for a minute...

Nope! didn't work.

Price wise, ouch! the MBP is quite a bit more expensive, and you'll get so much more machine with the MP.

17" 2.8Ghz duo macbook pro = $2,500
8GB of ram upgrade = $650
24" display = $800 (depends what you want - and 17" is to small to work on).
2 external FW drives 1TB FW800 drives = $330 (NEVER work live off your boot drive)
-------------------
$4,280


2.66GHz Quad pro = $2150 (refurb)
16GB or RAM = $600
24" display = $800 (depends what you want)
2 internal 1TB drives = $220 (speedwise, FW800 drives are slow when working live)
-------------------
$3,770

You save $500 and the only thing you lose is the ability to take your computer to class — not sure why that's a big deal. Paper and pens are much lighter. LOL

It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent students have lost major projects, even complete theses, due to inadequate backup.

Entirely agree.

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

Wait!

A Mac Mini (4 GB of ram max) and a MacBook Pro (8GB of ram max) is a better choice for a graphics user, even when you stated a quad core mac pro is inappropriate for a graphics user, and 12-16GB of ram is adequate for today, but not for tomorrow. I have to wrap my head around that for a minute...

Nope! didn't work.

Price wise, ouch! the MBP is quite a bit more expensive, and you'll get so much more machine with the MP.

17" 2.8Ghz duo macbook pro = $2,500
8GB of ram upgrade = $650
24" display = $800 (depends what you want - and 17" is to small to work on).
2 external FW drives 1TB FW800 drives = $330 (NEVER work live off your boot drive)
-------------------
$4,280


2.66GHz Quad pro = $2150 (refurb)
16GB or RAM = $600
24" display = $800 (depends what you want)
2 internal 1TB drives = $220 (speedwise, FW800 drives are slow when working live)
-------------------
$3,770

You save $500 and the only thing you lose is the ability to take your computer to class — not sure why that's a big deal. Paper and pens are much lighter. LOL



Entirely agree.

MBP 2.93 ghz $2199.00 Refurb.
[http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0...mco=MjE0NjE5MA

Also you NEED a display with a Mac Pro, the laptop already comes with one. If I were dude I would get that laptop. portability is PRICELESS, you can use your MBP for everything.

I remember traveling the world with my MBP I used it for everything, internet, online banking, final cut, pro tools, logic, even used it for a dang phone with Skype. I will always have a laptop they are simply the best solution in the world

peace

[scoobs1969]

Sure. A 17" display is big enough for online banking, internet, writing term papers...but is it big enough for design work (FCP, CS4, Dreamweaver....)? I can't stand working with photoshop CS3 on a 20" display at a photo studio.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

Wait! A Mac Mini (4 GB of ram max) and a MacBook Pro (8GB of ram max) is a better choice for a graphics user, even when you stated a quad core mac pro is inappropriate for a graphics user, and 12-16GB of ram is adequate for today, but not for tomorrow. I have to wrap my head around that for a minute...

Nope! didn't work.

The reason it does not work for you is that you keep reconfiguring my recommendations and ignoring life cycle costs in the process.

I said "a Mini is the best (desktop) choice right now at today's pricing." The Mini's limited RAM works for the short term at dirt-cheap cost; resell and upgrade to a cheaper/stronger tower with more than 4 RAM slots in a year if appropriate and still come out ahead. The MBP's 8 GB RAM limitation is a trade off for portability; in my extensive college experience that portability is of HUGE value, well worth trying the 17" MBP as a main box. I would start the MBP out with the stock 4 GB RAM today and add RAM as needs develop and RAM prices fall.

A Quad is an expensive box with long life cycle that lacks invaluable portability, hence for that box 12-16GB of RAM is adequate for today, but not for tomorrow.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by tears2040 

...I will always have a laptop they are simply the best solution in the world.

I concur. Portability has me using my 17" MBP much more than my MP even though the MP is much stronger and has huge mass storage. And my MBP is an early C2D; the new 17s are much more powerful.

There is a reason laptop sales dominate.

-Allen Wicks

[Big Mac]

Yeah, but one of the reasons why the laptop share is so imbalanced on the Apple side is that you can't get a prosumer Mac tower anymore.

[Spheric Harlot]

That *would* make sense, except that sales are shifting towards laptops in general, across all manufacturers.

In fact, the iMac is the *only* desktop series in the industry actually seeing growth, IIRC.

[scoobs1969]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

The reason it does not work for you is that you keep reconfiguring my recommendations and ignoring life cycle costs in the process.

I said "a Mini is the best (desktop) choice right now at today's pricing." The Mini's limited RAM works for the short term at dirt-cheap cost; resell and upgrade to a cheaper/stronger tower with more than 4 RAM slots in a year if appropriate and still come out ahead. The MBP's 8 GB RAM limitation is a trade off for portability; in my extensive college experience that portability is of HUGE value, well worth trying the 17" MBP as a main box. I would start the MBP out with the stock 4 GB RAM today and add RAM as needs develop and RAM prices fall.

A Quad is an expensive box with long life cycle that lacks invaluable portability, hence for that box 12-16GB of RAM is adequate for today, but not for tomorrow.

-Allen Wicks

I fully understand the life cycle costs. Some people want to over-speculate what the 2-6 year future holds, then justify their purchase when they've overspent.

I actually disagree the Mac Mini is the best desktop choice right now. I'm actually still shocked people even BUY the Mac Mini when the Macbook is essentially the same computer. You certainly won't come out ahead if you buy a mini, resell a year later to upgrade to a tower. Since you've already spent $800 on the Mini, and maybe recouped $400 on the resale, you've just spent an additional $400 (the previous year) on top of what you're about to spend on the new tower.

If you're recommendation is to get a Macbook Pro with 4GB of ram (won't be enough, might as well stuff with 8GB from the get go) because of portability, the graphics student should still add a 24" display for a adequate working real estate. And if they add an additional display, they don't need the 17" laptop when a 15", or even a 13", laptop will suffice in the classroom.

The last life cycle comment about the Mac Pro makes no sense whatsoever. If 12-16GB of ram is adequate for today, then you're clearly suggesting 4GB clearly isn't adequate for today. If 4GB of ram isn't enough to run graphics apps on a Mac Pro, then 4GB of ram isn't enough to run graphics apps on a laptop. The type of "box" you're using makes entirely NO difference if you're computer is bogging through it's tasks.

I concur. Portability has me using my 17" MBP much more than my MP even though the MP is much stronger and has huge mass storage. And my MBP is an early C2D; the new 17s are much more powerful.

There is a reason laptop sales dominate.

-Allen Wicks

Yes, there is a reason. General users don't need a Mac Pro. If you don't need a Mac Pro, then getting a more versatile laptop instead an iMac or Mac Mini is simple common sense.

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

Sure. A 17" display is big enough for online banking, internet, writing term papers...but is it big enough for design work (FCP, CS4, Dreamweaver....)? I can't stand working with photoshop CS3 on a 20" display at a photo studio.

Well if you were going to buy a monitor for a MP anyways than you would still have more real estate with the MBP as you would have the laptop screen + external monitor.

Also I think many people fail to realize how powerful that MBP actually is ........

Now onto that subject I don't have the money for either so no matter what the OP chooses whether it's a quad, ocot, or MBP it will be more than enough for all tasks


peace

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In fact, the iMac is the *only* desktop series in the industry actually seeing growth, IIRC.

That's correct. But again it's dictated by lack of choice.

Imagine Apple started selling a headless midrange Mac in a similar price range as the iMac. Guess what? They'd sell about three iMacs the year after.

[Spheric Harlot]

I believe you're wrong on all counts, but that's the impression I get from people who are buying the current offerings, not from those who *aren't* buying, so that's slightly skewed.

The iMac is not selling for lack of choice IMO, but because it's a machine people actually WANT.

Very many users have spent the past ten or fifteen years with exactly what Apple's iMac ads were aiming at for so long: a mess of boxes and cables.

The computer has become a living-room commodity, and reducing the clutter involved is not an afterthought.

People buy their TV as much by specs as by how well it fits in their living room, and how nicely it mounts on the wall, and by how many external boxes it saves them.

Computers are no different.

The people who would buy a headless iMac with expansion slots are a *tiny* minority, most of whom are perfectly happy with Linux/Windows or a Hackintosh, or are professionals who have no problem choosing their tools from what's available (i.e. they either need more horsepower --> Mac Pro, or their needs are well-enough served by the iMac series).

Apple is after the mainstream market, and they'll only gently expand their boxes to include the absolute minimum necessary to make their tools appealing enough to the professionals, as well (FW 800).

[Simon]

Is integrated design attractive? Absolutely.

But on the desktop - what do people value more? This integration or the freedom to swap screens and/or expand their computer? I believe it's the latter. I also believe that although buying a new computer every other year is an adequate way of getting around the issue of not be able to expand/upgrade, there are many people for whom this is simply to costly.

Apple has obviously chosen to disregard those concerns and cater only to one side. It's indisputable that they're doing that well. But it's also indisputable that they aren't catering to the other side. Now you may claim that that side is a negligible quantity, but since that is the side 95% of the 'usual' desktop market is geared at, I doubt Apple has nothing at all to gain there.

In the end, I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

[Spheric Harlot]

"On the desktop"?

See, that's the thing: Most computers (that aren't going to corporate in wholesale deals) aren't being bought "for the desktop" in the traditional sense.

They're "home" computers, and most of those buyers are happy to get RID of their computer desks - because the computer corner is invariably an eyesore in their home.

Either that, or they're office computers for small businesses (i.e. not wholesale corporate IT), and people who get to choose are pleased with less clutter in the office, too.

The computer-as-a-workstation is a small market.

If it were the dominant market, low-price-expandable Windows boxes wouldn't be dying out as the laptop market grows.

*That* is the reason the market is shifting to laptops: it's not because people need portability - it's because the damn thing hides in a drawer or a bookshelf when they're done with it!

And it's the real reason the iMac is bucking the trend.

[Simon]

I fully understand that. But then why get a non-portable notebook with a fixed screen (iMac) when you can get a real notebook plus a big screen for roughly the same amount? None of the Joe Sixpack home users I know would buy anything but a notebook nowadays anyway.

I get the impression the iMac tries to be too much at the same time. It has to be everything from low-end desktop to high-end prosumer device to home computer and corporate desktop at the same time. And of course it has to! It's the only thing Apple's got in that entire huge segment. But as usual, products that try to be everything at one, most often just can't compete with products that are geared specifically at a certain task.

The iMac is no bad computer. But it just can't be everything it's supposed to be equally well. Now you can argue that that's the way Apple does business and they intentionally don't do everything. I agree with that. But I also acknowledge that that also means either lost sales and/or people ending up with something which isn't really what they wanted. The former is only a non-issue if those sales never equate to earnings. And the latter should be somewhat disturbing for us Apple folks. Normally it's the Windows world where people have to put up with "well, it's good enough".

[Spheric Harlot]

It's selling better than any competitor in the market, though, so…

[Simon]

Sure. But as I said, I believe that's because there's nobody else in that market.

If Apple were to offer something else than the iMac in its place (and at the same price), that would be the thing selling so well. With Apple holding 91% of the beyond-$1k market, pretty much whatever they do up there will immediately become the market leader for that segment.

[Spheric Harlot]

Okay, so nutshell:

You think the iMac is only selling because there's no alternative.

I think the iMac is selling because it's an iMac. It certainly seems to be drawing the Windows users in like **** draws in flies. People fall in love with it at first sight. Grown men cry. Children stand in awe. Wives actually go home and convince their husbands that they need a new household computer.

The Pope himself has ordered three.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Okay, so nutshell:

You think the iMac is only mainly selling because there's no alternative.

I think the iMac is selling because it's an iMac.

I think with that minor correction we've about summed it up.

[scoobs1969]

Originally Posted by tears2040 

Well if you were going to buy a monitor for a MP anyways than you would still have more real estate with the MBP as you would have the laptop screen + external monitor.

Yup! I outlined that above, which is why I said the student wouldn't need a 17" laptop if they purchased an additional 24" display.

Also I think many people fail to realize how powerful that MBP actually is ........

Now onto that subject I don't have the money for either so no matter what the OP chooses whether it's a quad, ocot, or MBP it will be more than enough for all tasks

That's where I disagree. I'm not sure the MBP will be enough anymore. It's very possible it could be enough today, but the question is will it be good enough 18 months from now? It seems like the limited consumer computers seem to outdate themselves within 12-18 months when they're thrown at professional graphics tasks (photography included). That's doesn't appear to be the case with the Mac Pros, which seem to have a 3-4 year cycle before they're feeling sluggish — thanks to it's expansion and upgradeability.

In the end I'm just suggesting what I'd do; knowing what it's been like in the design field for the past 15 years.

cheers.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

I actually disagree the Mac Mini is the best desktop choice right now. I'm actually still shocked people even BUY the Mac Mini when the Macbook is essentially the same computer.

That is a good point. The MB is a good box, just the limitation to FW400 can be an issue with graphics workflow. But many folks on the low end will not notice. Also the limited MB graphics can be an issue when driving the MB display and then adding a larger display, as opposed to the Mini driving a single display.

-Allen Wicks

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by scoobs1969 

Yup! I outlined that above, which is why I said the student wouldn't need a 17" laptop if they purchased an additional 24" display.



That's where I disagree. I'm not sure the MBP will be enough anymore. It's very possible it could be enough today, but the question is will it be good enough 18 months from now? It seems like the limited consumer computers seem to outdate themselves within 12-18 months when they're thrown at professional graphics tasks (photography included). That's doesn't appear to be the case with the Mac Pros, which seem to have a 3-4 year cycle before they're feeling sluggish — thanks to it's expansion and upgradeability.

In the end I'm just suggesting what I'd do; knowing what it's been like in the design field for the past 15 years.

cheers.

I 100% disagree. I own a 2007 MBP & I'm more than sure I can do anything today still ......


THink about famous movies that were shot 10 years ago using computers, do you honestly think & believe that my 2007 MBP cannot hang with a 10+ year old computer that was used for a movie like Independence Day.....


You people kill me with this tech, also I'm willing to show people my graphics work, audio, video, etc. all done on these computers.....

[Spheric Harlot]

Um. The rendering for movies like Independence Day was done over WEEKS on multi-million-dollar rendering farms.

The PowerBook in that movie didn't *really* save the earth, either.