Wow these machines are serious.

Really outstanding.

Glad to see they went with the FB-DIMM RAM slots.

Quad machines all around.

4 HD bays 2 optical drive bays.

2 400FW 2 800FW ports.

Just fantastic.

These machines are a PC Gamers wet dream come true.

Very exciting. Capacity of 16GB of RAM? Wow.

Seems to be some serious hardware power. Trouble is, to me, they still can't call OS X "pro" until it gets rid of all that casual use happy horseshit.

Has anyone heard whether or not Adobe software works on this machine yet?

I'm definitely not going to break my rule about not getting the first rev. of new Apple hardware. I can't jump until well after the first speedbump, and probably the third hardware revision. Then the bugs will be worked out, if Apple runs true to form.

22 years of Mac experience tells me stay away from the new release, no matter how sexy it is.

Adobe software will run on these machines in Rosetta. These machines are so powerful it can handle running in Rosetta in the meantime.

16GB's of RAM for now. The FB-DIMM slots can scale up to 192GB. The flexibility of FB-DIMMs should allow for actually upgrading your RAM down the road. Say when DDR3 4GB modules hit the market now you have capacity for 32GB. At least this is what the white papers are saying how FB-DIMM slots are supposed to function.

Four HD slots. They really are HD slots too. No cables the drives just slide into an interface that plugs into the back of the drives for power and data.

My main gripe about moving to Intel was Altivec. Well it looks like Apple got Intel to enhance the SSE3 vector engine on the Xeon or at least bring it alive. 128bit vector computations has not been thrown aside.

Did you see the whole thing with the Time Warp stuff in Leopard? That is some serious backup. I used to have Retrospect back up like that in the office. It was nice because we could retreive files in earlier states when needed. It was all on a tape backup which was a pain in the ass.

I did see Time Warp. I'll believe it when I use it. I'm so suspicous of Apple hype.

Did you see the changes to Mail? Precisely the kind of crap that makes me mental. Adding to-do's to a friggin' MAIL CLIENT. Um. Why? They're already in iCal where they belong.

"Spaces" seems interesting, but I think they could have made it more intuitive. To me, all interface like that does, is reinforce the idea that OS X's interface is too cluttered and disorganized to be of any use whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by thalo:
I did see Time Warp. I'll believe it when I use it. I'm so suspicous of Apple hype.

Did you see the changes to Mail? Precisely the kind of crap that makes me mental. Adding to-do's to a friggin' MAIL CLIENT. Um. Why? They're already in iCal where they belong.

"Spaces" seems interesting, but I think they could have made it more intuitive. To me, all interface like that does, is reinforce the idea that OS X's interface is too cluttered and disorganized to be of any use whatsoever.

Would i trust an Apple backup solution with "a cool GUI interface (just slide backwards in time) ?"

Yeah, sure.

Rico, like i said the FB-DIMM'S require their own heat-sinks.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/expansion.html

Well, that's just normal in a server :-)

You better make sure you look hard at your electricity bill if you buy one of'em sledgehammers.

But that's just normal in a server :-)

In terms of PCIe-cards or more specifically available lanes, it's interesting that the sledgehammer is actually a step back from the G5 quad: The G5 has 1x16, 2x8 and 1x4. The monster only has 1x16, 2x4 and 1x1. Could be a real problem for people that use, say, a video capture card + a RAID + of course a GPU. Well, the Intel-chipset just doesn't give you more, Steve. And games will still scream on the 'ammer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: klapauzius,

Wow the more I look at the Mac Pro I think Apple has been reading thalo.net on a regular basis.

Brother klappy you could always buy RAM with heatsinks. Did you think heatsinks are something new to FB-DIMMs?

Wait I thought you said PCI express slots were a bad thing for the G5. Now the G5 PCI express slots are better than the Mac Pro's.

I love what is said when you go to the Apple store page for the Mac Pro after hitting configure were you are given the 4 million options to choice. The learn tab under Memory has this note at the bottom:

quote:

Please note: Apple created a more robust thermal specification for the Mac Pro FB-DIMM heat sinks that provide more efficient cooling than many other FB-DIMMs. These FB-DIMMs require less airflow to stay cool and allow the internal fans to spin at slower speeds, improving system acoustics. FB-DIMMs made by other manufacturers that do not include a sufficient heat sink may cause the fans to run faster (and louder) or the memory chips to run slower so as not to overheat.

This is specifically there to scar brother thalo into only buying his RAM from Apple.

It took me a double take to realize the RAM slots are on their own little boards that then plug into the main board.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Brother klappy you could always buy RAM with heatsinks. Did you think heatsinks are something new to FB-DIMMs?

Well, they certainly are necessary with'em. One FB-DIMM takes about 11 Watt, compared to about 5 for a DDR2 DIMM. How many FB-DIMM's are there in the 'ammer ?

11 Watt is, by the way, the power consumption of a G3-Processor :-).

quote:

Wow the more I look at the Mac Pro I think Apple has been reading thalo.net on a regular basis.

I had that same reaction. I think it's because they know we're their best critics. We bash because we love, lol.

I configured a couple of Mac Pros for shits and giggles, just to see what they'd cost. Holy crap, just a warning to the MacFaithful: If you do this, get ready for a friggin' PHONE CALL from the Apple Store, basically asking you why you didn't commit to the order. It's like having a grasping, needy girlfriend, lol. You have to just say, yeah babe, calm down, I'll call you.

quote:

This is specifically there to scare brother thalo into only buying his RAM from Apple.

Mission accomplished. But did you see the pricetag on 16 Gigs? Almost six grand. Please.

quote:

Originally posted by thalo:
Very exciting. Capacity of 16GB of RAM? Wow.

And? The Dual-Core G5s support 16GBs of DDR2 and the original G5s support 16GBs of DDR1, provided you can track down enough 2GB DDR1 DIMMs to populate all the slots.

Welcome Lateralus from Tulsa.

The Intel Xserver's can use up to 32GB of DDR2 in 8 slots. It lists compatible DDR2 dimms from 512 1GB 2GB and 4GB's.

As I said earlier I will not be surprised if in the near future the same will be true for the just released Mac Pro.

Why not now. I don't think there are any 4GB RAM modules out yet.

Yeah, welcome brother Lateralus. Three more members and we hit our century at thalo.net!

Wait, I could put 16Gigs on my machine now? Is that something new? I wouldn't have gotten 8 1-Gig chips, if I knew that I could get 16 in there.

It looks like OWC has 2GB DIMMS listed for your machine. I don't think they are spec'd by Apple. Crucial does not have 2GB DIMMS for your particular machine.

When you bought the radiator 2GB DIMMS might have been over a thousand dollars each. OWC is selling them now for between 225 and 260.

I was checking the Apple pricing on the their fancy RAM. You can BTO 4X1GB DIMMS for $1100 or 8X1GB for $2500. WwwWWwhaaaat? That is $300 more than getting 2 sets of 4X1GB option.

What do you all think of releasing the Mac Pro so far ahead of the release of Leopard? Strike anyone else as odd?

I mean a lot can happen between now and Spring of 2007. Not that I'm going to buy anyway, but why on earth would I buy now before I see how Leopard shapes up?

Releasing the Mac Pro ahead of Leopard only seems odd from your perspective because you are a customer for large desktop computers. Looking at it from Apple's perspective, large desktops are not its main products anymore. Most of Apple's revenues are generated by iMacs, Mac mini's, notebooks, iPods, and music sales. Pro customers like you are a side issue these days. Your preferred hardware was last on the list for the change over to Intel.

In any case, the hardware change to Intel and operating system upgrades seem to be two different projects with their own schedules. Besides, its not likely that Apple would tie the release of its operating system to the production of what is increasingly becoming a minor product (revenue-wise) --large desktops.

Your buying strategy shows both experience and wisdom. Never buy version 1.0 of anything from Apple. Let the overeager rubes do Apple's testing while they pay top dollar for the product. It's always best to wait for later versions.

Brother HH, as usual, sees right to the heart of the matter.

I see more and more nods toward pro users from Apple--mostly because like I said, the casual use public is going to ALWAYS be more fickle than the old guard Mac Faithful. And the Mac Pros are always going to spend more money on hardware and software. Yes, a digikid will spend a few hundred on an iPod, but then they've shot their load for a year. A pro will buy tens of thousands of dollars of hardware every couple-three years. The only drawback is that you have to PLEASE us. You have to make the purchases honestly worth it. You can't foist crap or we'll see right through it.

As I've said many times, this change to OS X was the first time in my loooong Mac career where I consciously took a productivity HIT, to go with the flow, and follow the corporation based on where IT wanted to go, rather than where I thought it should go as a creative professional.

Now, to be honest, OS X hasn't been all bad. There are network and internet gearhead things that go a little bit better, simply because the operating system acts more like your basic web server. But when it comes to doing work, producing, designing... all the creative output stuff, OS X has been miserable. Why? Because the casual use interface has been miserable. Because the Finder has been miserable, and because the OS doesn't run applications as smoothly as it ought.

OS X is good at a few dumb servery things. Like making catalogs of jillions of photos, or serving up files from a morass of disorganized junk-drawer chaos. That's what servers do.

And yet when it comes to being an extension of the creative mind, OS X has taken a huge step backward. Toolness has suffered. It's easier for Apple to do a few designs FOR you, and let you pick from an array of them, rather than building tools that actually DO OR BUILD anything.

Until true toolness comes back to the Mac, it's all a sham to me. Right now, every pro out there... EVERY ONE, is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole that's too small. We can suck it up and be creative and TRY to use this operating system as a tool... try to use our applications efficiently and well, but we'll always be fighting an interface meant for people who Apple marketeers think have the sole motivation of wasting time.

The more confusing and distracting the interface, the more Apple can charm the pants off of newbies and digikids. But the more they distance themselves from pros, who need minimalism and functionality.

I want everyone who uses a Mac to really take a hard look again at really how much Apple has hung on just EYE CANDY. How much of the development is nothing more than gee-whiz, spinning-gears bullshit that does absolutely squat. Years into the fight, that's still what needs to change.

Apple needs to stop imagining their customers as morons and retards, and start thinking of them as hardworking folks that need good tools. The personal computer is 25 years old now. We need more than bullshit to spend the money on a cpu. We need proof that we can do things with it. Not things that Apple PRETENDS we can do (by really doing them for us)... but real stuff. Ground-up stuff.

Let me use a photoshop analogy. Working in Photoshop is more than picking from a catalog of pre-fab filters. If the TOOLS didn't work, if the place where the software meets the meatware never worked right, the program would be worthless. If you couldn't pick up the brush and scribble, or draw a straight line... it would all be meaningless.

Without that responsiveness, or feeling that the application is the extension of the person... it's lacking as software. So if you have an operating system that is so choked with crap that it GETS IN THE WAY of that toolness, what do you do? Right. Clean it up.

OS X needs spring cleaning. An overhaul. A purge of all the BS, marketing crap, con-jobs, eye candy shams... everything that doesn't contribute to USING a computer well, and actively. The problem is OS X is better at being a PASSIVE experience. When you try to really DO shit, it fumbles. And all the special effects in the world can't spin it that the machine works, when the human interface stuff is in this rough of shape.

Not odd at all.

This machine is not so much about customers, it's about developers. That's why it was released during WWDC. They had to give developers some kind of guidance as to where Apple is headed system-wise. Now the cat is out of the bag, Leopard will be 64 bit (also on G5 PowerMacs), and this is the machine for developers to write their software on (and a nice one for that). Developers also have Leopard (although in beta), so they can start coding now. That it will also be the machine people will be buying lets developers tune their software to "the real thing". I think the competitive pricing could be seen as an attempt by Apple to draw some developers to the platform. The stuff that became known as far as new developer tools are concerned is not revolutionary, but nice like garbage-collected objective-c and 64-bit of course.

Oh oh. Just found this

http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

Man, that G5 is a screaming processor, ain't it ? With Leopard being 64 bit and the core duo CPU's not exactly shining in that area (contrary to the G5) i wonder what the benchmarks will look like then...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: klapauzius,

Calling a machine (Insert fav Name here) "Pro" is IMHO cheesy and too obvious that this is typical marketing bullshit. Understatement-ridden ppl would call these simply Mac. Nuff said.

And I'm drunk.

Easy on the jargermeister there smithz.

Klappy are you drinking at the same saloon as brother smithz.

The Mac Pro is about the developers? Wasn't Apple's Intel-based Mac development kit machine for the developers? Offered at last years WWDC in June of 2005.

thalo said:

quote:

And yet when it comes to being an extension of the creative mind, OS X has taken a huge step backward.

It is apparent thalo is back on the sauce as well.

Naturally HighHopes is right on the mark, right on the mark to what X-Critic's want to hear.

The Mac Pro is still the grooviest machine out there to date.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Easy on the jargermeister there smithz.
Klappy are you drinking at the same saloon as brother smithz.

Well, i'm drinking at Smithz Howly Tavern ... or, wait... indirectly i drank at thalo's, through cyberspace.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
Klappy are you drinking at the same saloon as brother smithz.

The Mac Pro is about the developers? Wasn't Apple's Intel-based Mac development kit machine for the developers? Offered at last years WWDC in June of 2005.

The original Dev-kits you refer to were a dud. Shitty, cranked-together hardware that had nothing whatsoever to do with the stuff that was released for users later on. That was the main reason why UB's arrived so slowly.

Apple seems to have learned that lesson and gives developers the same hardware for developping that the apps will run on later. Additionally, With leopard the next switch, namely to x86_64 is taking place, so these machines are there for developers to port their stuff to x86_64. That means that as a user, i would wait until Leopard hits the shelves and the first two updates have arrived before i purchase one of 'em hammers.

By the way (amd slightly o/t), does anybody else find it odd how Apple is downplaying the 64-bit-capability of Leopard ? I mean they do all this Vista-bashing and then they keep silent about 64 bits which could really give them an edge over Vista which uses some emulation layer for 32 bit stuff. And this from a company that doesn't have a history of downplaying features :-)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: klapauzius,