Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mduell · Aug 11, 2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

IBM and Motorola/Freescale have fallen into the habit of not updating their product specification listings until long after Apple has already started shipping newer verisons. Freescale, for example, still lists the 7447A as topping out at 1.42GHz even though they have been shipping the 1.67GHz component to Apple for a few years. Hell, they still list the 7455 as stopping out at 1GHz even though they started shipping it at 1250MHz in 2002 and 1400MHz in 2003.

To assume that the 970 has not many any progression over the past year is a little foolish and you should know that.

Sure; some of the IBM PPC970FX docs, even those updated 2 months ago, only list clockrates up to 2.2Ghz which is obviously incomplete. Intel sometime neglects to update their website or update it completley; for a while one of the middle Core Duo models was missing from Sspec.
What I'm talking about is the server products (JS21 and friends) that IBM is actually selling. 2.7 dual and 2.5 quad are the highest speeds available.

TimmyDee51 · Aug 11, 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

My gripe about the G5 tower was that all that cooling was never needed in the first place. Apple was very glutenous in their design of the entire layout. Breaking the expansion card area and drive area into their own 'thermal zones' with large cooling fans was completely unnecessary and used up valuable space that could have easily been used for additional optical drive bays and hard drive bays.

Beyond that, the G5's heatsink(s) didn't need to be anywhere near as large as it was. Apple made it that size for aesthetic reasons only; to fill in the bulk of the thermal zone. Hell, look at the Mac Pro. The Xeon doesn't need anywhere near as large of a heatsink as Apple gave it, but they did it anyway so that it would extend all the way to the wall of the bay.

Apple could have skimped down on the size of the G5 cooling even further when they went to water cooling. The water cooling apparatus didn't occupy as much space as Apple made it appear.

Basically, to me, the Mac Pro represents a redesign that Apple could have introduced with the G5 a long time ago but chose not to. And now that it's out, their excuse for having not implemented it earlier is that G5 cooling prevented it. And it's only half true. Because while I will admit that the G5 required more cooling effort than the Woodcrest, it didn't require as much as it was given for aesthetic reasons and the rest of the case certainly didn't require as much as it got either.

Maybe you're forgetting the whole MDD noise debacle. As an owner of a dual 867 MHz MDD at home and a dual 2.0 G5 at work, I can say that I'm glad Apple "wasted all that space" so the fans will run slower and more quietly. I'm sure the same is true with the Xeons.

mac128k-1984 · Aug 11, 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Please tell me you don't honestly think 300MHz made Apple switch

I was busy at work and did not have time to respond. Do I honestly think apple made the switch because of the 3Ghz issue, yes but that's not the only issue though I suspect its a big one. The laptop issue was another reason.

You have to admit that apple putting in a liquid cooling mechinism to push the clock rates higher was a kludge and only had to be done because IBM couldn't deliver. If they failed early on in the relationship that didn't bode well for a long and fruitful partnership.

Overall apple was dissatisifed by IBM, in a nutshel the 970 couldn't deliver on IBM's promises.

One more thing, and correct me if I'm wrong. In reading posts here, I get the feeling you are like some pro PPC/anti intel person. Is that a fair assessment?

I mean some statements like "My gripe about the G5 tower was that all that cooling was never needed in the first place." seem ludicris, and your arrogant response to my 3GHz is another example of some PowerPC elitest thinking that seems out of place for a mod and well out of touch with reality.

Lateralus · 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

Maybe you're forgetting the whole MDD noise debacle. As an owner of a dual 867 MHz MDD at home and a dual 2.0 G5 at work, I can say that I'm glad Apple "wasted all that space" so the fans will run slower and more quietly. I'm sure the same is true with the Xeons.

I've had pretty much every variation/revision of every Power Mac since the B&W G3.

Apple shipped crappy fans with the first revision of the MDD. I really don't know why people keep bringing it up as a point of reference when the subsequent revisions of the MDD were as quiet as an average desktop machine should be expected to be.

I've owned Dual 867, Dual 1GHz, Dual 1.25 and two Dual 1.42 MDDs. The only one that was even remotely noisey was the Dual 867 and it's because it was a first generation machine.

That said, I do agree with you. I loved my old Dual 2.5GHz tower. It was absolutely silent and it was because Apple used the space inside the case the way they did. It was fabulous. The reason I gripe is because so many people believe that the G5 required nine system fans to function. Again, more fans doing less work = less noise.

Lateralus · Aug 11, 2006, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I was busy at work and did not have time to respond. Do I honestly think apple made the switch because of the 3Ghz issue, yes but that's not the only issue though I suspect its a big one. The laptop issue was another reason.

You have to admit that apple putting in a liquid cooling mechinism to push the clock rates higher was a kludge and only had to be done because IBM couldn't deliver. If they failed early on in the relationship that didn't bode well for a long and fruitful partnership.

Overall apple was dissatisifed by IBM, in a nutshel the 970 couldn't deliver on IBM's promises.

One more thing, and correct me if I'm wrong. In reading posts here, I get the feeling you are like some pro PPC/anti intel person. Is that a fair assessment?

I mean some statements like "My gripe about the G5 tower was that all that cooling was never needed in the first place." seem ludicris, and your arrogant response to my 3GHz is another example of some PowerPC elitest thinking that seems out of place for a mod and well out of touch with reality.

mac128k-1984 · Aug 11, 2006, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Come again,

This time try to use words to express yourself a single smiley fails to truly convey the point your trying to make.

Lateralus · 08:32 PM

Sorry, but you're not worth the effort of a lengthy post since you apparently don't bother to read them when I make them. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to make whatever 'points' you were trying to make.

thetman · Aug 11, 2006, 11:32 PM

I need a mac pro owner to confirm but ... at the compusa where I work we put a Mac Pro on display 2.66 stock with 7300GT and tried to hook up a 30" and 23" apple display but they wont connect at the same time due to the dvi connectors being to close. can anyone else with dual monitors (2 apple cinemas is posible) cofirm this possibly big problem, also the rear audio is DOA, the front jack works fine but nothign from the back

mduell · Aug 12, 2006, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by thetman

I need a mac pro owner to confirm but ... at the compusa where I work we put a Mac Pro on display 2.66 stock with 7300GT and tried to hook up a 30" and 23" apple display but they wont connect at the same time due to the dvi connectors being to close. can anyone else with dual monitors (2 apple cinemas is posible) cofirm this possibly big problem

What!?! That would be the most stupid mistake ever.

thetman · Aug 12, 2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

What!?! That would be the most stupid mistake ever.

im going to try a regular dvi cable from a different monitor but i know for certain that 2 apple cinema displays could not be hooked up at once on the machine I used

k2director · Aug 12, 2006, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by thetman

I need a mac pro owner to confirm but ... at the compusa where I work we put a Mac Pro on display 2.66 stock with 7300GT and tried to hook up a 30" and 23" apple display but they wont connect at the same time due to the dvi connectors being to close. can anyone else with dual monitors (2 apple cinemas is posible) cofirm this possibly big problem, also the rear audio is DOA, the front jack works fine but nothign from the back

When you buy a Cinema Display, Apple includes a little doo-hikcey adapter that lets you plug it into a graphics card as a second display. Without the adapter, you physically can't fit two display connectors next to each other on the card. With the adapter, you can. The adapter is small, just a little piece of plastic, mostly.

thetman · Aug 12, 2006, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by k2director

When you buy a Cinema Display, Apple includes a little doo-hikcey adapter that lets you plug it into a graphics card as a second display. Without the adapter, you physically can't fit two display connectors next to each other on the card. With the adapter, you can. The adapter is small, just a little piece of plastic, mostly.

if you could either take a pic or find one online that would be awsome but i will dig through the boxes for the displays tomorrow morning and try again

mac128k-1984 · Aug 12, 2006, 09:11 AM

Ars Technica now has a review of the Macpro,
nicely done with lots of pix.

I like the one with the heat sink showing in comparison the kludgy liquid cooling they had to do for the G5. Nice comparison and I'm happy learned its lesson on the liquid cooling.

bballe336 · Aug 14, 2006, 01:10 AM

So can the mac pros use off the shelf PC graphics cards or not? I know there has been some debate about it but has any tried it out yet?

phantomdragonz · Aug 14, 2006, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by bballe336

So can the mac pros use off the shelf PC graphics cards or not? I know there has been some debate about it but has any tried it out yet?

they have upped the rom size from 64(kb?) to 128... all I know is the macs have double the rom size to handle the EFI AND PC info, the stock pro card has been tested in a PC and it runs fine, a PC vid card will not even talk to OSX, but will work under windows on the pro...

Zach

bballe336 · Aug 14, 2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by phantomdragonz

they have upped the rom size from 64(kb?) to 128... all I know is the macs have double the rom size to handle the EFI AND PC info, the stock pro card has been tested in a PC and it runs fine, a PC vid card will not even talk to OSX, but will work under windows on the pro...

Zach

Is there any way to flash the card to make it work? I did this on the card I am running now in my G4 (it's a PC card).

- - e r i k - - · Aug 15, 2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The guys I work with are high-level retouchers. They do work for Maxim, Victoria's Secret, Playboy, etc. The introduction of the Healing Brush hasn't changes the workflow much at all. It's still 99% layers, layer masks, curves and the clone tool. As a matter of fact, there isn't a reason (from their perspective) to upgrade from CS to CS2.

Actually, the most scarily good Photoshop guy I've ever seen wouldn't even use the clone tool. He'd just paint the **** on there freehand, but that's another thread.

I've worked with retouching myself, and I can tell you that the "no change in workflow" is just plain old resistance to change. After all they have a technique that has worked for them for years - why change it up (even though it might benefit in a faster workflow). And that goes especially for the guy who paints himself. He's probably an old-timer from when they used real airbrushes to airbrush photos.

The results might be the same, but the techniques have gotten better. The healing tool is an excellent addition to an airbrushers toolkit.

UnixMac · Aug 16, 2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Ars Technica now has a review of the Macpro,
nicely done with lots of pix.

I like the one with the heat sink showing in comparison the kludgy liquid cooling they had to do for the G5. Nice comparison and I'm happy learned its lesson on the liquid cooling.

I just finished reading it, and I for one can't wait for my Pro, and about 6-8 more months to pass by so that all of the UB software is out.. I don't think I'll be missing my Dual G5..

kick52 · Aug 17, 2006, 03:44 AM

wow, it looks exactly like the G5, nice.

iREZ · Aug 18, 2006, 01:22 PM

Mac Pro 2.66GHz versus Quad-Core G5/2.5GHz

these numbers seem rather promising. the macpro CAN hold its own vs the quad g5 when it comes to cs2, even through rosetta.

tikki · 03:45 PM

I couldn't resist. I had to buy a Mac Pro. It should be here by the end of the week.

Now to figure out what to do with my G5 and desktop PC that it will replace.

UnixMac · Aug 19, 2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by tikki

Now to figure out what to do with my G5 and desktop PC that it will replace.�

Why do like I did, and sell the G5 while it's worth top dollar... and donate the PC to a charity (they never have good resale).

I got $2350 for my dual G5, nicely loaded with the 23".. and my friend who bought it got a $7000 system, that's 24 months old for 1/3 the price..