Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > The Official Mac Pro Thread

The Official Mac Pro Thread (Page 6)
Thread Tools
rnicoll
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Leonard
Actually your wrong. Having used a dual processor Power Mac for over two years I can tell you anything, yes ANYTHING, you do on a dual processor Mac will use both processors. And that's because MacOS X itself has mutliple processes that will be running on both processors and your application is always making calls to MacOS X. MacOS X generally spreads the processes between processors. As well, most of Apple's own apps are coded for multi-processors (multi-cores) and future apps will be coded for multi-processors (multi-cores) as this is the wave of the future.
While, certainly, two cores will provide a bonus over one, as the OS background processes can use the second core while what I'm doing uses the first, I'm not entirely convinced four cores will provide a significant benefit over two.

We'll see; I'm not going to buy a MacPro at launch, and hopefully by the time I'm ready to buy, there will be a single processor (dual core) version. Failing that, I'll probably get a Mac Mini for work, and a PC for games/server.
     
ChrisB
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by rnicoll
While, certainly, two cores will provide a bonus over one, as the OS background processes can use the second core while what I'm doing uses the first, I'm not entirely convinced four cores will provide a significant benefit over two.

We'll see; I'm not going to buy a MacPro at launch, and hopefully by the time I'm ready to buy, there will be a single processor (dual core) version. Failing that, I'll probably get a Mac Mini for work, and a PC for games/server.
It all comes down the to software. The OS can only do so much to spread work among the processors - apps need to be optimized too. Example: Final Cut Pro. The reason you see such a benefit, moving from a single processor G5 to the Quad G5 is that FCP was written with code that recognizes the additional processors and then distributes more of it's work across them. Opening up Activity monitor on my Quad shows even distribution of work across all four of my processors when I'm doing a large render.
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 03:45 PM
 
I forgot to note down the PM G5 dimensions. Can somebody tell me how much different the MP is? It looks very similar, but maybe a tad less high - could that be?
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 04:03 PM
 
Yikes. If you want to use photoshop better hold off on getting a pro until PS is native.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Not only that but the numbers aren't that impressive. The 2.66 is pretty much on level with the Quad G5's which is disappointing.

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 04:05 PM
 
What else were you expecting? Adobe dropped the ball.
     
Apfhex
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
I forgot to note down the PM G5 dimensions. Can somebody tell me how much different the MP is? It looks very similar, but maybe a tad less high - could that be?
The MP has *exactly* the same dimensions, from all the reports I've heard.
Mac OS X 10.5.0, Mac Pro 2.66GHz/2 GB RAM/X1900 XT, 23" ACD
esdesign
     
TimmyDee51
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
Yikes. If you want to use photoshop better hold off on getting a pro until PS is native.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Not only that but the numbers aren't that impressive. The 2.66 is pretty much on level with the Quad G5's which is disappointing.
On the contrary, I find it impressive that the 2.66 is close to as fast as the quad G5 for non-native apps. As faster Intel chips come out, we may see Rosetta performance that is faster than native PPC performance, ala the 680x0 to PPC switch.
Per Square Mile | A blog about density
     
G5man
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 04:22 PM
 
That is very good graphics performance, just a bit over 90 fps and with stock card is amazing! I am betting that rosetta performance will imrpove in Leopard. The Mac Pro is looking like a very promising machine but it was a bit sad that iTunes did not perform as well. Perhaps in Leopard, it will take advantage of quad processing.
Mac mini 1.42 Ghz 1GB RAM 80 GB HD + 160 GB External HD
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 05:00 PM
 
Numbers look great to me for the low end system!

All that for $800 less then the Quad G5 was...
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
Yikes. If you want to use photoshop better hold off on getting a pro until PS is native.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

Not only that but the numbers aren't that impressive. The 2.66 is pretty much on level with the Quad G5's which is disappointing.
Today's $2500 machine is faster than last weeks $3300 machine in 75% of the benchmarks (where one is not native), and you're disappointed?
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 05:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell
Today's $2500 machine is faster than last weeks $3300 machine in 75% of the benchmarks (where one is not native), and you're disappointed?
I am not impressed a Pro machine is the same speed as its 1 year old predecessor no.

And that is not taking Photoshop into effect which most pro users use.

"Hello, what have we here?
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 07:26 PM
 
Well, I'm getting a new work computer:



Should do fine with heavy Motion and Final Cut work, shouldn't it?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
MaxPower2k3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 08:32 PM
 
well, I got to play with one today. It's gonna make waiting for the ATI-equipped machines to start shipping so much harder. Loaded up four 1080p H.264 trailers from apple.com and it played 'em all without dropping a frame (while exposéd so all could be seen, and on a 30" cinema display). The four just about maxed out the processors. With 3 playing the machine ran as if it wasn't doing anything. could go into dashboard and drop a bunch of widgets and open applications without a hitch.

This was a 2.66/7300GT machine (the only one shipping) with 3 gigs of RAM. CS2 was installed on it, but i didn't mess around with it too much. opened pretty quick, though.

"I start fires!"
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
I am not impressed a Pro machine is the same speed as its 1 year old predecessor no.

And that is not taking Photoshop into effect which most pro users use.
What, you didn't know the G5 will always kick ass? And I am also pretty confident that Apple withheld G5 speed bumps in order to make it easier for their Mactels to compete upon their release.

It is interesting, though, that Woodcrest does not seem to offer the substantial performance increase over Yonah that was logically expected. Yonah is said to be roughly equivalent to the G5 clock for clock, and Core 2 chips were said to be up to 30% faster than that. And yet here we see a Woodcrest with a 160MHz advantage per core not clearly exceed the Quad G5. Perhaps these machines are truly hampered by Intel's outdated bus architecture.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Aug 10, 2006 at 08:50 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
MaxPower2k3
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 09:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
It is interesting, though, that Woodcrest does not seem to offer the substantial performance increase over Yonah that was logically expected. Yonah is said to be roughly equivalent to the G5 clock for clock, and Core 2 chips were said to be up to 30% faster than that. And yet here we see a Woodcrest with a 160MHz advantage per core not clearly exceed the Quad G5. Perhaps these machines are truly hampered by Intel's outdated bus architecture.
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

Aside from the Rosetta stuff, i'd say the Mac Pro pretty clearly exceeds the G5 Quad.

"I start fires!"
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
What, you didn't know the G5 will always kick ass? And I am also pretty confident that Apple withheld G5 speed bumps in order to make it easier for their Mactels to compete upon their release.
Nah, the speed bumps seemed to be going about the same pace as they were before the Intel switch.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
What else were you expecting? Adobe dropped the ball.
No ball dropped yet.

Apple announced the switch to MacIntel just last year. Adobe has a huge code rewrite - millions of lines of code for really complex, hardware-demanding apps - to run CS on MacIntels. And the fact is that Rosetta works very well, considering. IMO Adobe did the right thing by choosing to conform the MacIntel rewrite with their normal 18 month version upgrade cycle.

If CS3 is great product Adobe did great IMO. If CS3 sucks, then they will have dropped the ball.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Aug 10, 2006 at 11:09 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2006, 11:09 PM
 
Hardware comparisons are really only relevant within the software framework that the hardware is running at any given time. Even hardware comparisons like Apple's speed comparisons are only relevant under the software environment selected (in Apple's case that is SPECint_rate_base2000).

What real world matters is the comparison of how apps run over time under the OSs that evolve. A new box in use for say 3-4 years, starting 2006SEP:

Stage 1: 1-8 months, 10.4, 50% of apps UB, others under Rosetta

Stage 2: 9-48 months, 10.5/10.6/10.7/11.0, 99% of apps UB

During Stage 1, about 1/6 of the life cycle, the relative performance of G5s will be fine for most (not all; e.g. Aperture, etc.) apps and even better for some, particulary Adobe.

During Stage 2, 5/6 of the life cycle, the MacIntel boxes will consistently outperform G5s.

The hardware can be the same from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Only the software will change, and there will be a great difference in comparative performance.

There also will be a stage 2B, which is when the MacIntel boxes receive newer-tech upgrades not available to the older G5s. And there very likely will be a time when a number of apps only run under MacIntel.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Aug 10, 2006 at 11:26 PM. )
     
stwain2003
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In front of my LCD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984
huh, that is some pretty twisted logic - at least to me. The iMac is a desktop. just because everything fits in one enclosure means its a notebook. and it has taken off, iMacs are a pretty popular line. You seem to be talking out of your butt on this subject.

Anyway my $.02 on the Macpro. I've been saving up thinking that I'd be spending 2k, not 3k. I'm not sure what I'll do, my mini runs what I have ok, but not great. The new MacPro does does seem overkill for my needs and to be honest, I love the small form factor that my intel mini brings. I'm not quite sure I want that behemoth belching out heat like an hyper-active heat pump.

I'm going to wait and see what the concensus is before I make any decisions.
it sounds like you need an imac core 2 duo
8GB iPhone
Coming Soon: Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

Aside from the Rosetta stuff, i'd say the Mac Pro pretty clearly exceeds the G5 Quad.
I have no solid proof to point to, but those in the know over at AI give little credence to Bare Feats. Macworld's results are unquestionable, on the other hand.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
What, you didn't know the G5 will always kick ass? And I am also pretty confident that Apple withheld G5 speed bumps in order to make it easier for their Mactels to compete upon their release.
IBM's own PPC970 products max out at 2.7Ghz single core and 2.5Ghz dual core. Is IBM in on Apple's grand conspiracy?

Originally Posted by Big Mac
It is interesting, though, that Woodcrest does not seem to offer the substantial performance increase over Yonah that was logically expected. Yonah is said to be roughly equivalent to the G5 clock for clock, and Core 2 chips were said to be up to 30% faster than that. And yet here we see a Woodcrest with a 160MHz advantage per core not clearly exceed the Quad G5. Perhaps these machines are truly hampered by Intel's outdated bus architecture.
The benchmarks say no, the FSB is not really what's holding it up.
If Yonah is 10% slower than the G5 and Woodcrest is 10% faster than the G5, both of which could be approximated to being the same as the G5, when Woodcrest is 22% faster than Yonah (Intel's claim was 20-30%).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 02:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
No ball dropped yet.
...
IMHO those are just apologies for Adobe's blunders.

Apple announced well before they shipped the first Intel Mac that they were switching. They mentioned they would switch aggressively. They offered the dev tools to do the transition too. Nevertheless, Adobe didn't think it would be necessary to work on an update for CS2 even though they saw that the first Intel Macs were whipping more than a year before CS3 was scheduled. If Mac customers were more important to them they would gear more resources towards this transition. You may think that's OK and argue they have their reasons. I call that dropping the ball.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Apfhex
The MP has *exactly* the same dimensions, from all the reports I've heard.
Thanks.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
IMHO those are just apologies for Adobe's blunders.

Apple announced well before they shipped the first Intel Mac that they were switching. They mentioned they would switch aggressively. They offered the dev tools to do the transition too. Nevertheless, Adobe didn't think it would be necessary to work on an update for CS2 even though they saw that the first Intel Macs were whipping more than a year before CS3 was scheduled. If Mac customers were more important to them they would gear more resources towards this transition. You may think that's OK and argue they have their reasons. I call that dropping the ball.
How is assuring quality control by working Universal in to their existing upgrade cycle a blunder? Would you rather make them put CS3 (which they were likely already developing) on hold to get a solid Universal update of CS2 out?

It's not like it's just throwing a switch in Xcode either since their codebase is on CodeWarriors.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
mousehouse
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 05:29 AM
 
First off, the MacPro looks really nice - especially when looking at the available features that have been added. But compared to the previous G5 case internals, it looks messy...

PSU:
I liked the PSU in the bottom because it gets it out of the way, hardly any cables to wire. The PSU in the top makes it look exactly like the PC cases that were featured as a comparisaon when the G5 came out.

Airflow:
Also, the two SuperDrives combined with the PSU take up a big amount of internal space. They could have opted for one SuperDrive (how many people really want two?), stick to the flat PSU and have better airflow internally. Also, having the CPU's before the memory means the memory will run hotter. Somehow this doesn't seem to be a great idea as these FB DIMMS already require big heatsinks. The G5 just looks like a better "package".

Drives & airflow:
Modern SATA disks can run really warm... I'm wondering how hot the last drive will get. Too bad they couldn't stack the drives top to bottom and keep the airflow better.

All in all. Great machine, great specs & functionality. I for one am very curious to hear how hot it runs and how much fan-noise it generates...
MacBook Pro 13"/2.66 (09/2010), Mac Mini c2d/1.83 (01/2008)
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 05:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
How is assuring quality control by working Universal in to their existing upgrade cycle a blunder? Would you rather make them put CS3 (which they were likely already developing) on hold to get a solid Universal update of CS2 out?
It's not like it's just throwing a switch in Xcode either since their codebase is on CodeWarriors.
I am well aware that they have to change the code base and I agree 100% with you that that is a lot of work. But exactly that's my point. If there's so much to do, why wait so long to start?

Adobe has had a fairly close relationship with Apple for years and they certainly knew for quite a while already (certainly back to the pre-CS2 days) that having to change to Xcode was only a question of time. Instead of doing that early on they chose to hold on to CW for as long as possible. And of course when Apple flipped the switch and went Intel Adobe was completely unprepared. If you compare MP vs. PM benchmarks of UBs with CS2 benchmarks, you'll easily see what a load of power Adobe users are missing out on. I think their strategy doesn't show much appreciation for Mac customers.
     
pheonixash
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
How is assuring quality control by working Universal in to their existing upgrade cycle a blunder? Would you rather make them put CS3 (which they were likely already developing) on hold to get a solid Universal update of CS2 out?

It's not like it's just throwing a switch in Xcode either since their codebase is on CodeWarriors.
You seem to forget that Apple ported their OS over to the new platform in roughly the same time that Adobe had, WHILE they were still developing Leopard. I think that is more of a feat, than just porting Photoshop.

And don't say that OS X has been ported to x86 for years. Photoshop has also been running on an x86 platform for years. So yes they HAVE dropped the ball.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by pheonixash
And don't say that OS X has been ported to x86 for years. Photoshop has also been running on an x86 platform for years. So yes they HAVE dropped the ball.

Umm... Adobe had a PLANNED product upgrade cycle. Apple threw the monkey wrench in and anounced a whole new processor architecture change, then went ahead of schedule and pushed every machine to the new architecture. Meanwhile Adobe is working hard developing CS3 with new features all the while learning the new system and getting it all moved over.

If the CS3 release is on time then I think they did thier part and come out as best they can.

This is not Quark who took years to get to OS X even. Adobe busted ass many times with all of Apples changes and will continue to support the mac within thier upgrade cycles.

The fact that Adobe has had it running on x86 for years means little as it all needs to work (and work well) in carbon/cocoa and that is a whole different game.

Lastly, Apple HAD thier os and many other programs already ported over, they polished them up in the last 200 days and have released many very quickly. As far as we know Adobe heard about all this 200 days ago....

I think you are being a little unrealistic here.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
But exactly that's my point. If there's so much to do, why wait so long to start?
Who says they waited, I am sure they geared up and stared the transition as soon as they heard about the intel switch, thing is they have new features to implement as well as Panther to worry about tying into. The people who are buying CS3 will most likely be running tiger and hopefully CS3 will tie into the core video features of Panther much as CS2 worked so much better with tiger, as seen here:

http://www.barefeats.com/cscs2.html

Don't forge the number of Intel Mac Pros is next to nothing right now, and will be still be small compared to PPC system in the coming few years. They have a lot of configs to support and need time to do it all.
     
sdilley14
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2005
Location: La Crosse, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
Well, I'm getting a new work computer:



Should do fine with heavy Motion and Final Cut work, shouldn't it?
Save yourself $420 and get the refurb 20" display.

Just a suggestion.
2.3 GHz Intel i5 MacBook Pro
iPhone 4 - 16 GB - Black
8gb iPod Nano
     
TiDual
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by sdilley14
Save yourself $420 and get the refurb 20" display.

Just a suggestion.
Well, it's his "work" machine so he's presumably not paying. Besides, this way AppleCare covers both the monitor + computer (not sure it would cover a refurb).

I just placed a similar order, except went for the 30" display ... hope it looks ok next to my 23" :-) ... nice that even the bottom of the line card can drive both of these displays, too.
     
tadd
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by rnicoll
While, certainly, two cores will provide a bonus over one, as the OS background processes can use the second core while what I'm doing uses the first, I'm not entirely convinced four cores will provide a significant benefit over two.

We'll see; I'm not going to buy a MacPro at launch, and hopefully by the time I'm ready to buy, there will be a single processor (dual core) version. Failing that, I'll probably get a Mac Mini for work, and a PC for games/server.
That's funny. I'm hoping I can hold out long enough for an EIGHT core version to come out. I've seen the multi-core light and I LIKE it.
     
discotronic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by sdilley14
Save yourself $420 and get the refurb 20" display.

Just a suggestion.
It looks like he is in Australian dollars so the price he is paying is just a couple dollars above the US price for a new one.
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell
IBM's own PPC970 products max out at 2.7Ghz single core and 2.5Ghz dual core. Is IBM in on Apple's grand conspiracy?
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.
( Last edited by Lateralus; Aug 11, 2006 at 11:10 AM. )
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus
IBM and Motorola/Freescale have fallen into the habit of not updating their product specification
If memory serves me correctly, one reason Apple switched to intel was because IBM was supposed to produce a 3GHz processor in a year (from initial G5 unveiling) and what 3 years later nothing. Did they finally break the 3GHz barrier or they still stuck at 2.7?
Michael
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by mousehouse
...They could have opted for one SuperDrive (how many people really want two?)...
The second optical drive is to allow future addition of a Blu-ray drive or similar. These are pro boxes, and my guess is that once high capacity optical storage prices get reasonable most pros will utilize that slot.

-Allen Wicks
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984
If memory serves me correctly, one reason Apple switched to intel was because IBM was supposed to produce a 3GHz processor in a year (from initial G5 unveiling) and what 3 years later nothing. Did they finally break the 3GHz barrier or they still stuck at 2.7?
Please tell me you don't honestly think 300MHz made Apple switch, especially given the other improvements IBM made to the G5 in lieu of those 300MHz. And for some reason it seems easy for people to forget that the G5 was, almost without exception, consistently the highest clocked 64-bit processor during its Mac-life.

I thought everybody pretty well understood by now that the reasoning behind the switch was the fact that neither Freescale nor IBM were willing to offer a viable notebook processor to Apple.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus
I thought everybody pretty well understood by now that the reasoning behind the switch was the fact that neither Freescale nor IBM were willing to offer a viable notebook processor to Apple.

The laptop line recieved a much needed speed boost, that is for sure. The Mac Pro line is stellar but the G5 was an awesome chip too, I am most giddy about what we gained inside and the potential for a smaller form factor tower now that you don't need all that cooling.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:31 AM
 
A few days ago Apple's Aperture product manager stated that ATI is expected to make a G5 capable X1900 graphics card available soon. IMO that card will significantly extend the utility of the final generation of G5 towers, because the stock G5 graphics suck for modern app/OS needs and no retrofit card improvement is currently available (except hacks).
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by zerostar
The laptop line recieved a much needed speed boost, that is for sure. The Mac Pro line is stellar but the G5 was an awesome chip too, I am most giddy about what we gained inside and the potential for a smaller form factor tower now that you don't need all that cooling.
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.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
Would you rather make them put CS3 (which they were likely already developing) on hold to get a solid Universal update of CS2 out?
yes.

UB version of CS2 out now > UB version of CS3 out sometime next year.

IMHO
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Phrogman
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 12:45 PM
 
I noticed that the USB ports on the keyboard that ship with the Mac Pro are still only USB 1.1. Anyone know why that is? Surely it doesn't cost a penny more to make them USB 2.0

Just curious.
     
Landos Mustache
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phrogman
I noticed that the USB ports on the keyboard that ship with the Mac Pro are still only USB 1.1. Anyone know why that is? Surely it doesn't cost a penny more to make them USB 2.0

Just curious.
Cuz they want you to buy the bluetooth one.

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by iREZ
yes.

UB version of CS2 out now > UB version of CS3 out sometime next year.
For a very small portion of their userbase. Pro graphics Macs with Intel were just released a couple of days ago. Almost nobody has them.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 02:32 PM
 
the macbook PRO was released lots earlier than a few days ago. although i agree that most users of cs are still on ppc, it still doesnt explain how adobe decided to skip on a UB update of CS2 and is making us wait for CS3. im sure there'd be a lot more MBP users had a UB version been out by now, heck its the only real reason i see that most professionals havent switched over yet.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
For a very small portion of their userbase. Pro graphics Macs with Intel were just released a couple of days ago. Almost nobody has them.
Excellent point. At the time that Adobe had to decide how to proceed with UB development Apple would not guarantee Mac Pro boxes until 2007; and Apple's track record on hardware forecasts had zero credibility, let alone with a radically different new platform and chip supplier.

The 2007 April forecast delivery date of UB with PSCS3 was very, very reasonable if one asks the question "Mid-2005 (actually probably much earlier than that) what was a reasonable expectation as to when Apple would have pro MacIntel towers on the street." In early 2005 which of you folks knocking Adobe's decision would have bet fully functional pro MacIntel towers would be shipping in quantity in 2006?

-Allen Wicks
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by iREZ
the macbook PRO was released lots earlier than a few days ago. although i agree that most users of cs are still on ppc, it still doesnt explain how adobe decided to skip on a UB update of CS2 and is making us wait for CS3. im sure there'd be a lot more MBP users had a UB version been out by now, heck its the only real reason i see that most professionals havent switched over yet.
You are right that that UB CS2 would have increased MBP sales. But Adobe sells CS apps, not computers. I do not know one person who plans on dropping one Adobe app because UB is not available until 2007Q2.

For Adobe's shareholders and users the best development path as of early 2005 when such development planning needed to be formalized was to optimize CS3 development and keep the suites as organized as possible rather than diverting engineering resources just to make a UB that might sell a few more Apples that very likely might not exist in quantity until PSCS3 was out anyway.

Note that the use of laptops for pro Adobe CS is a miniscule part of the CS2 market. And folks like me who do use CS2 generally recognize the shortcomings of laptops for heavy graphics usage in general. I, for instance, have been anxiously awaiting Merom MBPs before upgrading the laptop side of my work. And I have been waiting for MacIntel towers before upgrading the desktop side; I would wait until 2007Q1 and quad cores if I could.

Folks with G5s have no urgent need either for MacIntel towers or for UB Adobe. Folks like me who need to buy MacIntels and run Adobe CS2 are coming from old boxes (like my DP G4 and PB G4), so for us MBPs and Mac Pros are a CS2 improvement even running under Rosetta. The overall result is that to fast track UB Adobe would have been disrupting meaningful CS product development (the recent "suite" concept appears to be a development challenge in and of itself) for very little benefit to Adobe customers or shareholders.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Aug 11, 2006 at 03:24 PM. )
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
IMHO those are just apologies for Adobe's blunders.
It's not a blunder at all. Ever since the engineers who founded Adobe stepped aside, to be replaced by marketing folk, Adobe's corporate direction has been to maximize profit by releasing major "upgrades" which contain minimal new features and maximal bloat. You can see it by looking at Photoshop or Illustrator: each new version adds one or two useful features with eight or nine questionable ones, all the time making the apps larger and less responsive. While doing this they have avoided making some real, under-the-hood changes which would really help their users.

Fr'instance, Photoshop has gained some useful stuff (much better handling of digital camera formats), some questionable stuff (the healing brush is of limited use, mainly to non-pro users) and a lot of bloat. Most of what they've done has been to refine what came before, like layers->layer sets, etc. However, they haven't addressed any of the shortcomings in Photoshop's color engine, which have been evident since 6.0. Same with Illustrator: some useful stuff, a lot of bloat and nothing done to improve it's graphing abilities, which is one of the most used, and least well-supported features of the app.

So, rather than release Intel-native versions of CS2, they will put it all into CS3 and force another upgrade on their customers. Adobe's all about maximizing profit these days.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett
the healing brush is of limited use, mainly to non-pro users
Bite your tongue. The healing brush is plenty useful when you want to fix something quick.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Bite your tongue. The healing brush is plenty useful when you want to fix something quick.
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.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,