[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think you need to be googling purple dinosaurs, not Mayberry deputies.

Then again, I don't think you want to google anything involving package.

Google thinks I mean cartoon drunks.

[subego]

Now, I'm fine with PCI being outboarded, but if this is gimped on RAM slots, that's going to be a deal breaker.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, I'm fine with PCI being outboarded, but if this is gimped on RAM slots, that's going to be a deal breaker.

4 RAM slots lets you get to 64GB reasonably ($200 per 16GB plus Apple markup so maybe $1600?), but 128GB is pricey (2x the price per gig, so $6400?).

[subego]

There is no amount of RAM which is too much for crunching on 16-bit uncompressed 1080p, let alone 2160p.

I may have to stick a fork in it.

[boy8cookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

4 RAM slots lets you get to 64GB reasonably ($200 per 16GB plus Apple markup so maybe $1600?), but 128GB is pricey (2x the price per gig, so $6400?).

math

[Doc HM]

and while we are on about it...

What did they do to the Airport Extreme and Time Capsule. Just weird.

AirPort Time Capsule - 2TB - Apple Store (U.S.)

They are going to look way more intrusive in the home that the old flat ones.

[Shaddim]

Between the look of the Mac Pro and the AE, I think Tim is trying to compensate for something.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

and while we are on about it...

What did they do to the Airport Extreme and Time Capsule. Just weird.

AirPort Time Capsule - 2TB - Apple Store (U.S.)

They are going to look way more intrusive in the home that the old flat ones.

They also remain complete ripoffs.

A (3.5") 2TB SATA drive is around $100, and a great Wifi router can be had for well under $100 too. I guess the other $100+ is for the privilege of using Time Machine network backup and network printing.

I've been backing up using Time Machine to a Linux machine in the house that does a bunch of things. Somebody should get in the business of creating low-cost Time Machine alternatives. Maybe Raspberry Pi + DD-WRT + SATA drive enclosure?

[Hawkeye_a]

I love(sincerely) the fact that they have incorporated some of my favorite UI elements from WebOS...
-Multitasking UI
-back/forward gestures (although i think my PalmPre2 with the gesture area at the bottom is slightly better because it does not obstruct the view).

While the 'notification center' is unchanged, I am hopeful that it evolves into something more like my PalmPre2. Why Apple did not hire Matias Duarte, i will never understand (he now works at Google). For example, a throbbing light to denote unseen notifications on the device, thus alleviating the need to check the device by turning the display on.

Kudos to Ive for implementing such sweeping changes in such a short time.

My only gripe with the new design is the color palette. I'm not a fan of the neon themed icons, personally i favor more 'conservative' colors.

All that being said...... I want a MacPro!

[osiris]

I love the new Mac Pro, however a pain in the ass it will be to have frickin cables extending out from the back of the thing for an external Blu Ray, DVD, hard drives, SD reader and whatever else I'll need.

It looks fast on paper, and would love to get one if the price isn't too unreasonable (say, less than 3.5K for a 16GB RAM 256GB SSD system).
But my instinct tells me this could easily fail if it's too expensive - perhaps 4 to 5K for a starter system? Too early to tell for any of this...
but it is exciting!

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

1. Acknowledge that iPhones and iPads have cannibalized sales of all consumer PCs and Macs will cater to the niche of creativity/productivity, either professional or hobbyist.
2. New iOS 7 is a subset of OSXI, or iOS 7 runs on Macs with OSX compatibility environment.
3. iPhone and iPad apps will run on Macs too, triple-FAT binaries
4. New MacBooks will have touch sensors and all-band LTE modem
5. The WWDC logo is a tall stack of App icons, representing the multiplying effect of running iOS apps in Macs.
6. Cats and skeumorphism killed forever.
7. Windows pundits will claim that OSXI is copying Windows 8.
8. Disappointing Mac specification/speed upgrades.
9. No iTV or iWatch. AAPL stock dips to $275.

5 out of 9 aint bad at all, specially since many of them were the same point repeated several times.

/me disappointed by the stoppage of retina progress and no LTE in 2013?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

/me disappointed by the stoppage of retina progress and no LTE in 2013?

Never going to happen I'm afraid. Not in any year.
LTE is a whole mess of different tech depending who you ask and what country they are working in. Apple likes one model to fit all markets, its why they never made ADSL versions of the Airport Extreme.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They also remain complete ripoffs.

A (3.5") 2TB SATA drive is around $100, and a great Wifi router can be had for well under $100 too. I guess the other $100+ is for the privilege of using Time Machine network backup and network printing.

I've been backing up using Time Machine to a Linux machine in the house that does a bunch of things. Somebody should get in the business of creating low-cost Time Machine alternatives. Maybe Raspberry Pi + DD-WRT + SATA drive enclosure?

The do cost more than I'd happily pay for one but then I have no money at all and if I had plenty, I'd buy Airport every time. IMO the range extension provided by adding Airport Extremes is also a valuable feature. I've messed around with numerous options for extending wifi over the years and still nobody comes close to Apple for ease of setup or reliability.

[Hawkeye_a]

Oh, I have to compliment Craig Federighi's presentation skills. He did an amazing job! (although the jabs at the skeuomorphism were a bit harsh)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

5 out of 9 aint bad at all, specially since many of them were the same point repeated several times.

/me disappointed by the stoppage of retina progress and no LTE in 2013?

Five? Which five?

I see two (the two I predicted might happen - 8 and 9), though only half of one of those (no iWatch or iTV, but AAPL is well over $400), and half of a third (Cats killed, but skeuomorphism is still there - just not the fake textures).

Oh, and I wrote, "you're bound to find some moron somewhere that will claim that Apple is copying anything, from Windows to the Palm Treo."

So I guess if you're okay with being wrong on every RELEVANT point, you win this thread. Kinda. On two and two half-points.

[ajprice]

I liked Federighi's presentations, internet cows and green felt included. Quite a few times there was one clap or whoop and he'd go with it... "Yeah, that guy. I like scrolling too!" . Personally, the Game Center green felt deserves everything it gets.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Oh, I have to compliment Craig Federighi's presentation skills. He did an amazing job! (although the jabs at the skeuomorphism were a bit harsh)

I agree. I found myself really enjoying the show, and not really "missing" Steve much, at all. Phil Schiller was fun, too - the "can't innovate anymore, my ass" bit set a nice tone.

[Shaddim]

I suppose I'm stupid, but I saw a well-specced Mac Pro in the refurb outlet and bought it.

Two 3.06GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon "Westmere" processors
6GB (6 x 1GB) of 1333MHz DDR3 ECC memory
1TB Serial ATA 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 5770 with 1GB GDDR5 memory

I'll pimp it out to 64GB, install a pair of 256GB SSDs in RAID0, replace the old GPU with a new Sapphire 7950 (thx for that tip), and just go with that. That should do WRT my shop needs for some time, and even by today's standards should be pretty damned fast.

Also just got a 13" Air from the store and I'm tinkering with it, it's really nice, and fast as hell too.

[angelmb]

Nothing stupid about it. I wish my Mac Pro 1,1 could be upgraded like that. I like the new Mac Pro, not from an end-user stand point but as technical achievement. To me, it is like it was commissioned by Wayne Industries, it sure fits the pattern. Which doesn't mean we will not be all drooling about it right after it and 4K displays are released.

[subego]

After actually watching the keynote I feel mildly more bullish on whether I stick with Apple in the near future, but I'm still fashioning a long term exit-plan.

[mindwaves]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

I liked Federighi's presentations, internet cows and green felt included. Quite a few times there was one clap or whoop and he'd go with it... "Yeah, that guy. I like scrolling too!" . Personally, the Game Center green felt deserves everything it gets.

Agreed. Enjoyed him a lot. The new Mac Pro is ugly (at least initial images) and not having one drive bay for a pro machine is bizarre, but I would never buy one anyways. Looking to buy a mini for my business.

[subego]

Minis are fine machines. My current Mac Pro substitute is three i7 Mini Servers.

[boy8cookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Minis are fine machines. My current Mac Pro substitute is three i7 Mini Servers.

Three? How do you distribute processing effectively across 3 machines? There's even less software optimized for distributed processing than there is for utilizing the GPU. Must be joking.

[subego]

I do video effects with them. Things come "pre-distributed".

IOW, each Mini crunches one shot. With three Minis I can crunch three shots at once.

[mindwaves]

Hah. I was just going to use the Mini to do basic word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, and bookkeeping. Plenty of power for that.

[OreoCookie]

They have more than plenty cpu horsepower. I'm curious: why don't you get an iMac, mindwaves? Or a MacBook Air -- and connect that to an external display if you wish?

In any case, I'd wait for the Haswell update that should be right around the corner.

[11011001]

I am very disappointed with the Mac Pro. The 3rd party graphics card industry had finally opened up to OS X for the first time ever and now they are all incompatible with the new Mac Pros.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by 11011001 

I am very disappointed with the Mac Pro. The 3rd party graphics card industry had finally opened up to OS X for the first time ever and now they are all incompatible with the new Mac Pros.

Why are you disappointed?
From the looks of it, the Mac Pro integrates two of the highest-end pro graphics cards that are on sale today, the FirePro W9000. These puppies cost $3,400. Each. (Not that I expect Apple will pay that much.) But I think the price of a proper graphics card upgrade* would be higher than the cost of a new Mac Pro. Even though we don't know the price, if what the Mac Pro does is make such combined CPU and GPU horsepower available at a cheaper price than what you'd pay for them separately, I think we have a winner.

* You'd really need to buy the successor to the FirePro W9000, i. e. the top-of-the-line pro graphics card, to really get a boost in performance.

[subego]

The more I think about it the more I see the Pro as being aimed right at iOS developers.

Apple's done with the true tippy-top of the power curve (4K video and effects, 3D CGI, etc.).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more I think about it the more I see the Pro as being aimed right at iOS developers.

Apple's done with the true tippy-top of the power curve (4K video and effects, 3D CGI, etc.).

How can you come to that conclusion??
One of the features they have touted was the support of 3 4K displays, showing a picture of someone editing a movie on the accompanying slide in the keynote. Apple has managed to integrate two of the literally fastest pro-level graphics cards you can buy today into this thing, how much more perfect a machine can you make for 3d modeling?

It's really obvious what Apple's bet for the future is: more utilization of the two high-performance GPGPU for computations instead of the CPU. Expansion is handled via Thunderbolt, because if you have extraordinary storage needs, you will have to buy a RAID array or a NAS anyway. Support for 4K/Retina displays.

I don't see anything that makes the Mac Pro specifically interesting for iOS developers (other than the fast CPU which cuts down on compile times).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more I think about it the more I see the Pro as being aimed right at iOS developers.

Apple's done with the true tippy-top of the power curve (4K video and effects, 3D CGI, etc.).

That's an odd assessment.

FWIW, from the ars forums:
The new Mac Pro - Ars Technica OpenForum

As a video pro: Very few things actually require huge quantities of RAM, since most processing occurs on individual frames (or small groups of them) and even 4K frames aren't that large on an individual basis. And we need so much storage (and need to move things between systems often enough) that four internal 3.5" bays don't do us much good. Since last year, standard practice on our main color grading/editing systems has been to have SSD-only internal storage (for system, apps, and scratch) with all project data and footage external. These machines seem like they're built for precisely that model.

[mindwaves]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

They have more than plenty cpu horsepower. I'm curious: why don't you get an iMac, mindwaves? Or a MacBook Air -- and connect that to an external display if you wish?

In any case, I'd wait for the Haswell update that should be right around the corner.

This will be for an office desk environment. I already have a 15'' RMBP. A refurbished iMac under 1,000 may be ok or a cheap new Mac mini (no refurbs Minis offered in my country) coupled with a cheapest monitor and mouse would still be cheaper than the iMac. I would be replacing the Apple mouse anyways. Waiting for Haswell may be ok.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why are you disappointed?
From the looks of it, the Mac Pro integrates two of the highest-end pro graphics cards that are on sale today, the FirePro W9000. These puppies cost $3,400. Each.

Apparently the hardware is no different than the consumer graphics card at 1/10th the cost, but what you're buying is a guarantee on the drivers and that your software will work with it. Sort of like a T3 line versus a cable business line.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's an odd assessment.

FWIW, from the ars forums:
The new Mac Pro - Ars Technica OpenForum

Allow me to clarify.

That thing is ridiculously overpowered for editing. The standard is 8-bit 1080p compressed to 4:2:2. Even if you are doing 4K, there isn't enough advantage to editing at full resolution to justify the cost.

Color grading isn't my forte, so I won't comment.

Now, for effects, as I've been saying, the thing looks gimped. I need CPU and RAM. The more cores the better, and each core wants enough RAM to be able to stretch out.

This is going to be a simple math problem:

On one side I have the new Pro, whatever that costs, and whatever it will cost to keep it quiet. On the other side I have a DIY PC, which is rackmountable, so it can go in an isolation rack, two top of the line Xeons, 8 RAM slots, and a "Windows is a PITA" cost.

Which is going to be cheaper for equivalent power? I'm guessing the DIY by a pretty significant margin.

So, IOW, since the machine they're making isn't powerful enough for me, I'd say I must be at the tippy-top of needs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How can you come to that conclusion??
One of the features they have touted was the support of 3 4K displays, showing a picture of someone editing a movie on the accompanying slide in the keynote. Apple has managed to integrate two of the literally fastest pro-level graphics cards you can buy today into this thing, how much more perfect a machine can you make for 3d modeling?

It's really obvious what Apple's bet for the future is: more utilization of the two high-performance GPGPU for computations instead of the CPU. Expansion is handled via Thunderbolt, because if you have extraordinary storage needs, you will have to buy a RAID array or a NAS anyway. Support for 4K/Retina displays.

I don't see anything that makes the Mac Pro specifically interesting for iOS developers (other than the fast CPU which cuts down on compile times).

What makes it attractive to developers is the three monitors. Developers want lots of screen real estate.

[subego]

I forgot to add... in After Effects you preview by dumping each (16-bit 2160p 4:4:4) frame into RAM.

Simply put, the more RAM, the longer your preview. The more cores, the faster it renders (each core more or less gets a frame).

As I said. There is simply no off-the-shelf option which will be too much, and the new Pro seems to be only half what's possible. They're done with my niche.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What makes it attractive to developers is the three monitors. Developers want lots of screen real estate.

The 15" MacBook Pro and the 27" iMac also have support for up to 3 screens. So I don't see why the Mac Pro you can claim that the Mac Pro is aimed specifically at developers.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Apparently the hardware is no different than the consumer graphics card at 1/10th the cost, but what you're buying is a guarantee on the drivers and that your software will work with it. Sort of like a T3 line versus a cable business line.

You are right about the hardware being mostly identical (the FirePro series supports more RAM and I reckon it uses higher-quality components). I forgot about that point when I discussed the price previously. However, if you have a Mac Pro now and you need to run, say, Maya on it, you will need to shell out 10x the price in order to get the professional graphics card you need. Hence, it'll be cheaper for the customer to buy a new Mac Pro than an old-style Mac Pro (or equivalent workstation) plus the two professional graphics cards.

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, for effects, as I've been saying, the thing looks gimped. I need CPU and RAM. The more cores the better, and each core wants enough RAM to be able to stretch out.

The RAM ceiling on the Mac Pro is 128 GB (4x32 GB DIMMs), 64 GB with more commonly available 16 GB DIMMs. I don't know many workstation applications that require more than 128 GB RAM. Do you need more than 64 or 128 GB of RAM?

You're right that you're limited to 12 cores. But what kind of work do you do where you can make efficient use of more than 12 cores? (Apple's bet is that applications should utilize the GPUs for computations as well, but that depends on the type of application. In many cases, GPUs are massively faster than CPUs.)

Originally Posted by subego 

On one side I have the new Pro, whatever that costs, and whatever it will cost to keep it quiet. On the other side I have a DIY PC, which is rackmountable, so it can go in an isolation rack, two top of the line Xeons, 8 RAM slots, and a "Windows is a PITA" cost.

Workstations have nothing to do with DIY PCs. Sure, you can build a workstation, but most businesses don't just buy a workstation, because it is a fast desktop computer.

[subego]

See my post above yours about RAM and CPU.

The main reason I'd DIY is so I can keep it quiet. If it was going in a server room I'd buy something OTS.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

See my post above yours about RAM and CPU.

It doesn't say how much you need, just that »more is better«. But there is a limit when you just don't need any more RAM or when your CPU-intensive tasks just don't scale beyond a certain number of cores. Eventually things like throughput will just limit the speed of your machine. Photoshop just doesn't care for the most part whether you have 4, 6, 8 or 16 cores, it just doesn't scale.

How much RAM and how many cores do you need?

Originally Posted by subego 

The main reason I'd DIY is so I can keep it quiet. If it was going in a server room I'd buy something OTS.

Given Apple's history, we can reasonably expect that the new Mac Pro will be very quiet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It doesn't say how much you need, just that »more is better«. But there is a limit when you just don't need any more RAM or when your CPU-intensive tasks just don't scale beyond a certain number of cores. Eventually things like throughput will just limit the speed of your machine. Photoshop just doesn't care for the most part whether you have 4, 6, 8 or 16 cores, it just doesn't scale.

How much RAM and how many cores do you need?

Given Apple's history, we can reasonably expect that the new Mac Pro will be very quiet.

How much RAM do I need? I figure 512GB would give me 6 to 7 minutes of 16-bit 2160p preview at 24fps. I could use 10 minutes.

Cores are a little more complicated, and as you point out are dependent on I/O. Unfortunately I'm working with gimped hardware at the moment, so I have to guess. More than 12. I'll probably go for 16-24.


The DIY is because I'm not using a Mac.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more I think about it the more I see the Pro as being aimed right at iOS developers.

Not at all - mostly software developers need CPU cores. Compiling parallelizes well on CPUs. You don't compile software on a GPU.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Apparently the hardware is no different than the consumer graphics card at 1/10th the cost, but what you're buying is a guarantee on the drivers and that your software will work with it. Sort of like a T3 line versus a cable business line.

Very little of that certified software runs on a Mac anyway. There are some hardware differences, like much higher double-precision floating point performance (they gimp the gaming cards to differentiate, since it doesn't matter for gaming).

[subego]

As I said before, you run a bunch of screens off the GPU. Developers luv lots of big monitors.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said before, you run a bunch of screens off the GPU. Developers luv lots of big monitors.

The graphics hardware of the Mac Pro is way overpowered for just driving a few screens. Even the new Haswell-based Airs can run a single 4K display, so you don't need two very beefy GPUs for that at all.

Most developers I know (and I know a few) use a mobile Mac of one stripe or another (most have 15" MacBook Pros). But even the ones who have a Mac Pro bought it for its high single-thread performance, a single-cpu Mac Pro with faster clockspeed and sufficiently many cores makes more sense to them than having 10+ cores at lower clockspeeds.

Originally Posted by subego 

How much RAM do I need? I figure 512GB would give me 6 to 7 minutes of 16-bit 2160p preview at 24fps. I could use 10 minutes.

Cores are a little more complicated, and as you point out are dependent on I/O. Unfortunately I'm working with gimped hardware at the moment, so I have to guess. More than 12. I'll probably go for 16-24.

I don't know about your specific case, but usually things at the high end are IO limited (first and foremost network and disks, then RAM), meaning you can't use all of the RAM anymore.

In any case, it seems to me that the problem you have in mind is not a good fit for a Mac Pro anyway, a workstation with 512 GB RAM costs easily 10x what an entry-level Mac Pro costs. (For kicks, I configured a dual-Xeon Lenovo workstation with 512 GB RAM, everything else being stock. The price tag was $48k If you want decent CPUs and a speedy storage subsystem, expect to add $$$$-$$$$$.)

Wouldn't you be better off with a render farm, though?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The graphics hardware of the Mac Pro is way overpowered for just driving a few screens. Even the new Haswell-based Airs can run a single 4K display, so you don't need two very beefy GPUs for that at all.

Most developers I know (and I know a few) use a mobile Mac of one stripe or another (most have 15" MacBook Pros). But even the ones who have a Mac Pro bought it for its high single-thread performance, a single-cpu Mac Pro with faster clockspeed and sufficiently many cores makes more sense to them than having 10+ cores at lower clockspeeds.

I don't know about your specific case, but usually things at the high end are IO limited (first and foremost network and disks, then RAM), meaning you can't use all of the RAM anymore.

In any case, it seems to me that the problem you have in mind is not a good fit for a Mac Pro anyway, a workstation with 512 GB RAM costs easily 10x what an entry-level Mac Pro costs. (For kicks, I configured a dual-Xeon Lenovo workstation with 512 GB RAM, everything else being stock. The price tag was $48k If you want decent CPUs and a speedy storage subsystem, expect to add $$$$-$$$$$.)

Wouldn't you be better off with a render farm, though?

WRT development, allow me a personal anecdote which both supports and argues against your point.

I took a brief detour into development, and it was right at the time I needed a new computer. What did I get?

A 15" MBP.

Buuuut, that was a choice motivated by space and the ability to work when mobile. I've done some development work on multiple big screens. One screen is the code, the bigger the better because you can see more code at once, and the other screen is what you've compiled. The only reason I wouldn't do it this way is I couldn't afford it or I didn't have the room for it.


As for my current work, I can make use of a render farm, but that's only of use once you've done all the work and it's time to "print" each shot. AE can't assign more than one computer to a shot.

My standard setup is you have one computer where you actually do the work, and that's as much of a beast as is practical, then you set up a render farm of less beastly units, and once you've finished working on a sequence, you send all the shots to the farm, and the beast is free to start on the next sequence.

As for the $40K workstation, sadly, that's not practical. Firstly, I bet the thing sounds like a jet engine. More importantly, it would far be more efficient overall for me to make do with less RAM, and spend $25K on a render farm.

That's how I'm addressing this RAM issue. I'm assuming (I could be wrong) that splitting X amount of RAM across 8 slots is going to be cheaper than splitting it across 4, perhaps by a significant margin. That margin goes to other necessary parts of my workflow.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said before, you run a bunch of screens off the GPU. Developers luv lots of big monitors.

You don't need multiple or pro cards to run multiple high-res monitors.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In any case, it seems to me that the problem you have in mind is not a good fit for a Mac Pro anyway, a workstation with 512 GB RAM costs easily 10x what an entry-level Mac Pro costs. (For kicks, I configured a dual-Xeon Lenovo workstation with 512 GB RAM, everything else being stock. The price tag was $48k

That seems high. 24x 32GB from Dell is only $20k for 768GB.

[subego]

At 4K?

Yes you do.

[boy8cookie]

You definitely don't need 4k displays for development.
--

I've figured out what the Mac (mini) Pro is best suited for: mining bitcoins.

[subego]

You're going to if you want to develop for Macs. They're pushing retina, remember?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

That seems high. 24x 32GB from Dell is only $20k for 768GB.

I think it was a proprietary memory type (RDIMMs or so, workstation customers love proprietary memory ), perhaps that's the reason Lenovo wants more.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

A 15" MBP.

Buuuut, that was a choice motivated by space and the ability to work when mobile. I've done some development work on multiple big screens.

How does that speak against the MacBook Pro. Prior to coming to Japan where I don't have a second screen on my desk (because my desk is just too small), I've been using two screens since ~2002/2003 (when I enabled the multi-screen mode by »hacking« my iBook G3 800's firmware). That has always been plenty for my use cases. New 15" MacBook Pros even support two external displays, so in case you find the 15" screen too crammed (I used it for previewing documents, Mail and the like), you can have two full-sized 30" displays connected to it.

I don't know why there is this pervasive myth that you need »fast graphics« to drive large displays, even the super, super slow GMA 950 could drive a 30" ACD without problem.

Originally Posted by subego 

My standard setup is you have one computer where you actually do the work, and that's as much of a beast as is practical, then you set up a render farm of less beastly units, and once you've finished working on a sequence, you send all the shots to the farm, and the beast is free to start on the next sequence.

As for the $40K workstation, sadly, that's not practical. Firstly, I bet the thing sounds like a jet engine. More importantly, it would far be more efficient overall for me to make do with less RAM, and spend $25K on a render farm.

That's how I'm addressing this RAM issue.

Sounds reasonable. In many types of scientific computing, cheap clusters have long replaced work stations. ~10 years ago, I was doing a side project for a professor and they had just gotten their first 20+1 machine compute cluster. Each machine was about 1/3 (or even less) than the speed of their beefiest workstation, but they literally got 21 machines for the price of 1 Alpha workstation (I think it was already bought by HP at the time). Of course, YMMV. But very often the more reasonable solution is to use different tools, i. e. not use a hammer rather than a hammer made of adamantium.