×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's New Mac Pro Gets High Repairability Score

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the less-filling-tastes-great dept.

Apple 234

iFixit has posted a teardown of Apple's new soda-can-shaped Mac Pro. Despite the unusual form factor, it earned a relatively high repairability score: 8/10. iFixit said, "For being so compact, the design is surprisingly modular and easy to disassemble. Non-proprietary Torx screws are used throughout, and several components can be replaced independently." They say it's easy to access the fan and the RAM slots, and while the CPU is buried a bit more deeply, it's still user-replaceable. The Mac Pro doesn't get higher than an 8 because its uses some proprietary connectors and the cable routing is cramped. They add, "There is no room, or available port, for adding your own internal storage. Apple has addressed this with heaps of Thunderbolt, but we'd personally rather use the more widely compatible SATA if we could."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Springing Back (-1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45831381)

Springing back
Like applejack [wikipedia.org]
The aftershave that
Packs a smack
Burma Shave

Re:Springing Back (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#45831563)

Actually, it's kinda funny that they're surprised the Mac Pro was repairable.

I've done wild-arsed modifications [cubeowner.com] on the original Mac Cube before - while a bit tricky, even that was doable. ...maybe PC repair tech really has gone downhill over the past decade or so?

Re:Springing Back (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about 4 months ago | (#45831775)

Older electronics like the Cube tended to be made from discrete components, through-hole mounted and soldered using wave machines or even by hand and they could be easily chopped around, extra bits soldered into them or signals tapped out with the chip specs and pinouts available from a number of sources. Newer devices like tablets and modern compact laptops consist of one or two dedicated ball-grid-mounted ASICs, not easily hackable or repairable by ordinary folks without expensive reflow soldering gear, jigs etc. and of course the specs for those ASICs are commercial secrets. Even scrapping modern devices is less fun than it used to be -- I junked a Belkin wireless router recently and the only reuseable components I got off it were things like the DC power connector and a few electrolytic capacitors. On the other hand I replaced a switch on my favourite ten-year-old mouse just the other day, a like-for-like swap from another old defective mouse I had lying around.

Re:Springing Back (1)

otuz (85014) | about 4 months ago | (#45832131)

No, you must be thinking of 1970's stuff. Integrated circuits and surface-mounted components were mainstream by late 1980's.

Amazing Apple engineering (3, Interesting)

mozumder (178398) | about 4 months ago | (#45831925)

Right now Apple is making the most innovative computers in the market. Nothing else comes close. All of these other vendors are basically the equivalent to home-brew junk.

It's amazing that no one else in the world can make an uncompromised workstation-class product that uses only 1 fan. THAT in itself is some amazing engineering right there.

It will be a long time before anyone else even comes close, perhaps another 10 years if at all. I suspect PC vendors are going to die off while still clinging to the AT case design from 30 years ago.

Until then, we will be stuck with the whining from the Windows/Linux fanboys always trying to explain how their 12-fan monstrosity is somehow superior.

Re:Springing Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832259)

It's not funny at all when you realize that they reported the 2013 Retina MacBook Pro as unrepairable:

http://www.cultofmac.com/251359/ifixit-finds-2013-retina-macbook-pros-as-unrepairable-you-can-get/

Ifixit has long complained Macs are unrepairable and proven them as such. So, yeah, as unsurprising a surprise as you can get, really. :)

Who takes apart their laptop? (-1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#45831393)

Who would need to take apart their laptop? This isn't 1994 - the things generally don't die.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831435)

Who would need to take apart their laptop? This isn't 1994 - the things generally don't die.

Mac Pro. Not Mac BOOK Pro. Did you even read the article?

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831671)

Did you even read the article?

Never mind TFA. This guy apparently didn't even bother to RTFT(itle)

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

AJH16 (940784) | about 4 months ago | (#45832311)

I'm glad you spelled that one out for me. I'm not sure if I could have figured out what the T meant otherwise.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831443)

No, but parts do break. I had to replace the buttons on my Thinkpad trackpad after the left button collapsed.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831447)

I do, to clean the fan vent

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45831607)

I have a macbook pro. Apple are loathe to break the smoothness of their cases with something so practical as a vent hole - as best I can figure out, this thing sucks air in through the cracks around the keys and exausts it through a slit concealed by the lid hinge. It can get very hot if you close the lid, as this blocks the keyboard circulation.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#45831797)

Then again, I imagine the number of people who want to run it with the lid closed are quite few and far between. There is something to be said for esthetics. Especially on a portable machine. Being light and thin are things that some people don't quite get. Even though both my laptop and my tablet can access Netflix, I choose my tablet almost every time for this task (and just about any other task a tablet does well), even though the screen is significantly smaller because having a light compact device makes up for the difference in screen size.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#45832533)

Then again, I imagine the number of people who want to run it with the lid closed are quite few and far between.

I have my macbook pro for doing video and photograph editing. When at home at my desk, I have it plugged in with lid down, hooked to a nice Dell U2711 monitor, buckling (sp?) key keyboard, wireless mouse...etc.

I basically use it as a desktop when at home in the office, but disconnect and take it with me when traveling.

I have to imagine I'm not the only one that does this with a laptop....so, when at home, it does spend a fair amount of time with the lid down.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 4 months ago | (#45832125)

Apple are loathe to break the smoothness of their cases with something so practical as a vent hole

Plus ca change... [wikipedia.org]

Steve Jobs insisted on the idea of [the 1980 Apple III having] no fan or air vents – in order to make the computer run quietly. Jobs would later push this same ideology onto almost all Apple models he had control of – from the Apple Lisa and Macintosh 128K to the iMac.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832571)

The lid on a Mac does not block the exhaust at all. They're designed so that there's the same amount of ventilation under the hinge when closed as there is above the hinge when open. And they suck air in around the base –there's a few filtered intakes.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45832645)

I have a macbook pro in my lap. I just examined the bottom. It's a seamless, unbroken plate of metal. Maybe your model is different.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831485)

Me, I was given a water damaged MacBook Pro that Apple wanted to charge 900 to repair. I replaced the keyboard for 23 dollars. It works 100% now.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#45831495)

> Who would need to take apart their laptop? This isn't 1994 - the things generally don't die.

Physical things tend to wear out eventually. This is especially true when you are cooking your electronics. Also, capacity needs change. Alternately, you might not want to pay obscene upgrade prices.

Modular industrial devices. It's almost like we're not living in the middle ages anymore.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#45831575)

It's almost like we're not living in the middle ages anymore.

That's almost the problem. In the middle ages, everything was user-serviceable (albeit mostly because everything was homemade).

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#45831597)

Well, not quite. It wasn't until industrialization and assembly-line manufacturing that we saw user-serviceability. Until then, most of the homemade stuff required that you made an exact replica of the busted part yourself, else it wouldn't work quite right. Doing that took a bucketload of skill.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#45831639)

Except that you necessarily had the skill to make the replacement part because you were the one who made the original...

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831901)

Except that that's not actually true. Most people didn't have the skills to make replacement parts for their tools, because they didn't make their tools in the first place. That was the job for folks like blacksmiths, etc. A farmer didn't make his own plow, or even the harness for his oxen. Those were made by others.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832187)

Where do you think the surnames Carpenter, Smith, Nailor, Wagoner, Wright, Chandler, Fletcher, Bowman, Potter, Mason, Roper, Shoemaker, and hundreds of others came from?

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 4 months ago | (#45832381)

And of course this is true in other languages too. So for example in my area there's quite a few people with the last name Haddad in my area. Sounds fancy an exotic but it's just arabic for Smith.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831517)

Since when is the Mac Pro a laptop?

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (2, Informative)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#45831745)

This isn't 1994 - the things generally don't die

Lithium-ion batters have a limited lifespan and will lose their capacity. With almost all other laptops it's incredibly cheap and easy to fix, on the MacBook Pro the batteries are glued to the inside of the case! There's literally no legitimate reason for Apple to do that.

Re:Who takes apart their laptop? (4, Insightful)

Ixokai (443555) | about 4 months ago | (#45831847)

I don't think mixing "literally" and "legitimately" in the same sentence make sense, since the latter is entirely a determination of opinion.

You may not agree with Apple's position that every single milimeter and ounce matters, but that position is legitimate. There are consequences to that position, such as not being able to replace the battery yourself -- but its not like Apple is hiding that its laptops don't have user replaceable batteries.

Its a perfectly legitimate design decision and trade off. Maybe for you that means the products aren't for you -- that doesn't make it not *legitimate*, let alone not *literally* so.

Re: Who takes apart their laptop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832099)

Thankfully, *this* article is about the new desktop.

RTF Title

Thunderbolt (5, Insightful)

ThorGod (456163) | about 4 months ago | (#45831397)

Methinks if you can afford the new Mac Pro that you're not at all concerned about Thunderbolt vs SATA.

Still like to have more then 1 port in side the sy (3, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831493)

Still like to have more then 1 port in side the system and 1TB max is not really that much and the 256 GB base is a joke for an pro system.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831529)

Actually, 256GB base makes perfect sense for a pro system –most of these guys are editing huge videos stored on SANs, there's no hope of storing them locally. All they need locally is their OS, and some very fast scratch space.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (2, Interesting)

Holi (250190) | about 4 months ago | (#45832183)

And no chance of adding a 10gbe card so Video editing off a SAN is ridiculous.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832459)

And no chance of adding a 10gbe card so Video editing off a SAN is ridiculous.

I agree. Honestly, why don't more media people just remote in to a virtual machine running on a rack cluster? If they really need all the horsepower they can get then why settle for this overpriced trashcan when you can have hundreds of cores and terrabytes of memory at your disposal from any device anywhere in the world?

The only real reason I can think of is, "Because it's an Apple."

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832623)

Eh, this thing has 6 40Gb/s thunderbolt ports... Of course you can edit off a SAN.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#45831559)

Still like to have more then 1 port in side the system and 1TB max is not really that much and the 256 GB base is a joke for an pro system.

I'm pretty sure the assumption is that everyone in the target market for this machine will want external RAID, so the internal is really only for the OS & swap & apps and small files.

As for 1TB being "not really that much", please point me to a source of SSDs larger than 1TB. Uh, yeah, I thought so ;-)

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831691)

1TB is not really that much with HDD's and there are 2TB and 4TB Hybrid SDD's

The Mac mini offers upto to 2 1TB hdd's and the Imac offers upto 3TB with an Hybrid SDD's option and an HDD at 3TB.

Why does the mac pro not have 2 SDD ports? so they can at least offer dual 1TB?

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45831941)

The same reason why rack servers don't have a lot of USB ports. The Mac Pro is not a desktop. It is not a Mac mini. People who are using a Mac Pro will be working on large files stored on a SAN or TB enclosures because 1TB will not be enough. So Apple decided not to bother with make the Mac Pro larger to accommodate a feature that few of the intended market will use. If you need a small network file server, Apple makes the Mac mini server. This machine is intended for pros to edit 4K video, not a file server.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#45831713)

Well, I just bought a RAID of 24 SSDs with 5 TB usable. All for only $50k.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

grub (11606) | about 4 months ago | (#45831905)


Well, I just bought a RAID of 24 SSDs with 5 TB usable. All for only $50k.

Being /. I am surprised you haven't had this yet:

That was dumb. You could have bought some cheap drives at NewEgg, run them in a GNU/Linux RAID with lots of RAM for caching, set it up as an iSCSI target with optional NFS for cool GNU/Linux users (and CIFS for Windoze lusers!!1`1). A few good gig E ports to bind together and you would have saved $48K.

I could admin it for you if you open up telnet for me.
Mail l337h4x0r@aol.com if interested.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#45831953)

LOL. I looked at the VMware supported hardware.

They punched me in the face for asking about a GNU/Linux RAID.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45831763)

It seems that every one of your complaints about the Mac Pro is that it doesn't make a good desktop. Let me repeat for you again: A Mac Pro is not a desktop. It is a workstation for professionals. People who are buying this will need TBs of storage (and this will grow quickly). Now if it was a conventional desktop, that would mean that they would have to buy disks all the time and their cases would be fill up quickly. However most people who are using this system are building (or have) SANs with a backup strategy. Often a SAN is required as their work is collaborative. Think a Pixar animator not a Crysis II gamer.

it's apple only real non AIO desktop othen then mi (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831935)

it's apple only real non AIO desktop other then the mini.

the mini lags in hardware and does not offer any better video then laptop based Intel on board chips.

The imacs are ok but for stuff but for gameing other then maybe the top of line imac with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4GB upgrade are poor for there screen size.

and for the price of then top imac you can build an high system for about a $1000 less giving you a lot of room to add your own screen as well full desktop CPU's, HDD's, Video cards and more.

Re:it's apple only real non AIO desktop othen then (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45832015)

it's apple only real non AIO desktop other then the mini.

Again, it's not a desktop. It's a workstation. It was not designed for consumers to play games or surf the web. It is intended for professionals for work. As such it was designed with this in mind. Please stop confusing the two.

the mini lags in hardware and does not offer any better video then laptop based Intel on board chips.

Then don't buy a mini.

The imacs are ok but for stuff but for gameing other then maybe the top of line imac with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4GB upgrade are poor for there screen size.

Then don't buy an iMac.

and for the price of then top imac you can build an high system for about a $1000 less giving you a lot of room to add your own screen as well full desktop CPU's, HDD's, Video cards and more.

Then don't buy an iMac. The crux of your complaint is that Apple doesn't make the system you want them to make. Get over it. Don't buy Apple then. But complaining that Apple hasn't designed a system for you is just complaining to complaining. A Mac Pro was never intended for you. They are intended for professionals. That's like complaining that Mack Trucks doesn't make an 18-wheeler semi truck doesn't that seats 6 comfortably. That's not what it was intended to do.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (2, Insightful)

berj (754323) | about 4 months ago | (#45831803)

Why is it a joke? The 256GB is perfect for my needs. We only put the OS and applications and various caches on the local drive of any of our machines (Linux or Mac OS). The rest (about 200-ish terabytes) is network attached.

I think your definition of "pro" is different from mine.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#45831865)

Except that I have a 512 GB SSD on my current MacPro - which is about 3/4 full of programs and support files. The scratch disk is a 128 GB SSD. Everything else is enormous gobs of spinning glass. I'd consider the trash can (after Rev 2 of course, never buy Rev 1 hardware from anyone, much less Apple), but I'd probably spring for the 1 TB SSD since you have to have the option to have a separate scratch disk. And yes, theoretically, if you have enough RAM you don't need a scratch disk, but various Adobe products haven't quite figured that out.

Re:Still like to have more then 1 port in side the (1)

berj (754323) | about 4 months ago | (#45831951)

Indeed. I don't discount that some (many?) will need more local disk. I was merely pointing out that some of us need barely any and it's good to be able to get that. Nothing non-pro about it.

Re:Thunderbolt (0, Flamebait)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 months ago | (#45831505)

> Methinks if you can afford the new Mac Pro that you're not at all concerned about Thunderbolt vs SATA.

If I can afford a Mac Pro then I am probably running a storage technology that you haven't even heard of.

Re:Thunderbolt (2)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#45831789)

I don't know why they don't have 2 of their PCIe storage ports tho, there's space for it and compared to the cost of the system I doubt they needed to cut such a minor corner (It might even be cheaper because they wouldn't need 2 separate production lines for gfx daughterboards with and without the PCIe connector)

Re:Thunderbolt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831799)

Methinks if you can afford the new Mac Pro that you're not at all concerned about Thunderbolt vs SATA.

If I just bought a new Mac Pro I would have to count every penny for quite a while afterwards.

Hurr durr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831417)

Queue the Google fanboys to tell us how awful Apple is

Re:Hurr durr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831477)

Google/Apple, Kodos/Kang, Democrat/Republican.

It's beautiful when rich men set up an artificial sense of competition to keep the idiots treading water.

Mac Pro wirh certified Unix is not an iPhone (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 4 months ago | (#45832473)

Perhaps you've confused the Mac Pro workstation with a portable iOS device competing with Android. I'm one of those "Google fan boys" I guess, since I have three Android devices. I also have a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro. All are excellent for their intended purpose.

I strongly prefer my $99 Android Nextbook over my iPad. So yes, Apple's iOS devices do indeed suck - their usefulness per dollar is really bad. The Mac Pro isn't an iPad, though, it's a workstation that runs certified Unix.

crap, I have too many devices. 8 at home (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 4 months ago | (#45832529)

Reading what I wrote, I realize I have too damn many computers. At home, I have an Android phone, tablet, and TV box. Linux / Windows laptop, Linux desktop, MacBook Pro, Linux home server, and for some volunteer work I do a Linux PBX. That's 8 computers at home.

    At my 8-5 job, I have the Mac Pro and for my side job I have a rack full of servers.

If you can afford a new Mac Pro... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831421)

You can afford to take it to a computer repair shop. Or have your servants take it there.

sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831437)

you fucking retards.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 months ago | (#45831525)

SATA is a ubiquitous and cheap. Now before you reply people using Mac Pro's should not care consider all the multimedia production people that are still sneakerneting assets around to each other and back and forth with clients.

Cheap external SATA disks are great for that, and its not as much to cry about when something terrible happens to one.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831553)

SATA also maxes out at 600MB/s transfer rate, while thunderbolt maxes at 2.5GB/s, 5GB/s if you use dual channel, 10GB/s if you use two parallel connectors (which the standard supports trivially). The kind of work people who buy MacPros are doing pretty typically needs enormous bandwidth to stream uncompressed video files. Thus Thunderbolt is in fact a much more sane choice than SATA for this machine.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 months ago | (#45831641)

Sure, but the requirements storage I use while I am actively working on the content vs the storage I use to drop in a FedEx envelope and send to the customer are very different.

Incidently the customer likely works in a PC only shop and does not even have a thunderbolt connector.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832253)

ROTFLMAO, I doubt your "customers" are real.

You can get thunderbolt to eSATA you can get USB to SATA, there fixed all your problems for you.

Exactly how "creative" are you when you refuse to see solutions ?

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831753)

and the disk in side of that thunderbolt system is likely sata anyways?

So why not just an have E-sata port and save the over head cost an TB to sata cable (that likely does not chain) and or case? while it slows down other stuff on the same bus VS sata that is free with the chipset?

and before you say online upload / download speeds are not as fast moving big chunks of data in the say 25GB+ range.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45832425)

So why not just an have E-sata port and save the over head cost an TB to sata cable (that likely does not chain) and or case? while it slows down other stuff on the same bus VS sata that is free with the chipset?

Because adding more protocols and slower connectors to a system isn't efficient. There are no SATA ports in the new Mac Pro. The SSDs use PCIe not SATA. So Apple would have to add the much slower SATA just to have eSATA ports? That is a lot more overhead than running SATA through TB.

and before you say online upload / download speeds are not as fast moving big chunks of data in the say 25GB+ range.

The last time I checked 20Gbs is much faster than 6Gbs, and even if 1/3 of the bandwidth is overhead, TB would still kick the crap out of SATA.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45831669)

SATA is a ubiquitous and cheap.

AND slower and not external. People spending $3K on a workstation are most likely professionals for whom time/performance is more important than cost. Otherwise they would have purchased a $500 desktop.

Now before you reply people using Mac Pro's should not care consider all the multimedia production people that are still sneakerneting assets around to each other and back and forth with clients.

Are you saying that they can't do that with Thunderbolt? Because you can have SATA drives in a TB enclosure. But you can run TB over a SATA connection.

Re: sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831727)

Then buy a thunderbolt hub with a SATA interface.

Re: sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831947)

and pay for cost over head TB to get the same speed of sata?

Re: sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45832037)

TB is 10Gb/s per channel with 2 channels (20 Gb/s total). I'm pretty sure TB overhead is not the bottleneck when SATA 3.0 maxes out at 6Gb/s

Re: sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45832593)

but the HDD can't hit 20 Gb/s and the people who need sata HDD's should not be forced to pay the over head.

Re: sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45832607)

What? SATA has a max of 6Gb/s. Max. TB even if it had 40% overhead and using only 1 channel is as fast as SATA. Realistically it is much faster than SATA. The bottleneck is SATA not TB.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831939)

No one buying this is going to use a SATA disk. They are using a SAN. A SATA port is a waste.

Let's repeat that.

No one buying this is using external discrete disks. They are using SANs.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832189)

Best you go back to your serial ports and floppy drives too, they too were ubiquitous and cheap, so too were IDE drives.

I remember all the critics when the iMac had no floppy disks, no serial/parallel ports, this is no different.

People who cling blindly to the past are never able to see the future.

SATA to USB3 adaptors are cheap, problem solved.

A REAL professional whose time is important will also ways be looking to see how the future can make them more productive, and when that means technology change they will adapt and embrace it.

sata is free with chipset TB2 uses up pci-e lanes (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831535)

sata is free with chipset TB2 uses up pci-e lanes and we don't know how meany TB2 buses there are. Also the TB HDD's are SATA anyways or some kind of SAS raid card with the added cost of an case + TB chips.

Re:sata is free with chipset TB2 uses up pci-e lan (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 4 months ago | (#45831735)

From the presence of a PLX chip, it seems they're having to split PCIe lanes.

The Xeon E5-1620 has forty PCIe lanes. Give sixteen to each FirePro card, and you're left with only eight for Thunderbolt and the flash memory. Each Thunderbolt channel uses at least two lanes (they provide four lanes of PCIe 2.0, which is the bandwidth of two lanes of 3.0), so if we assume each port is on its own channel, that's at least twelve lanes. And the SSD is probably using either four or eight lanes as well.

So now not only do we have to figure out how many Thunderbolt buses there are, but we have to figure out how the PCIe lanes are being switched. It could be that heavy Thunderbolt traffic will slow traffic to the graphics cards and/or flash drive, which is a very, very weird symptom. From the positioning I think it more likely that all the TB controllers are being switched, maybe with whatever other PCIe devices are on the I/O board, but I can't say for sure.

Re:sata is free with chipset TB2 uses up pci-e lan (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831985)

Does some have a block map for the mac pro??

also there are pci-e 2.0 lanes form the chipset? maybe the SDD and other stuff like networking , sound, ect are running off of that?

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45831561)

Perhaps true, but I'm not sure it matters that much: eSATA or Thunderbolt, unless you're connecting to a rather large RAID 0 array or some very, very high-end flash hardware the drives themselves will be the bottleneck. The latest eSATA can do well over one giga*byte* per second. Not many drives will hit that.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45831579)

Correction: I misread something. The fastest eSATA is actually only 600MB/s. Still doesn't matter: You'd need multiple SSDs in parallel to hit that.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 months ago | (#45831709)

Only because SSDs are designed with the limitations of SATA in mind. The fastest SATA SSDs by themselves are only as fast as SATA because it makes little sense to make them faster. PCIe based SSD drives (cards?) are often faster than the SATA standard allows simply because the limitation isn't there.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831755)

Multiple? Sorry but a single SATA SSD can saturate 600MB/s and a Single PCIe SSD can do more than 2,000MB/s

Ive got 4 Traditional SAS drives that in a stripe (mirrored over IP fiberchanel to a identical machine) can sustain over one giga*byte* per second; there pretty old tech by today's standards... 2 Cheap SSD's in a stripe have no problem outpacing them.

Re:sata is slower than thunderblot 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831619)

Well the problem is that Thunderbolt--along with Flamethrower and Ice Beam--got its power nerfed [smogon.com] in the new games. 5 BP may not seem like much of a difference, but you'd be surprised how often it matters.

Cylindrical (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 4 months ago | (#45831779)

"Soda-can shaped"? Really?

Re:Cylindrical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832205)

Soda-can shaped is a subset of cylindrical, probably referring to the smaller diameter of the base and indent at the top.

what even happed to firewire 1600, 3200 it whould (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45831813)

what even happen to firewire 1600, 3200 it would been better then TB in ways like

be able to Daisy chain more a lot more then TB is only 6 firewire 63.

backwards compatible

able to add to any system with out the need for it to be build into the system board and need on board video chips.

works on more then just INTEL systems

more easily be able to have more then 1 bus.

cheaper cables

Re:what even happed to firewire 1600, 3200 it whou (1)

raddan (519638) | about 4 months ago | (#45832011)

As far as I can tell, there are no FW S1600/S3200 controllers available commercially. But if you want to connect a FW800 network to any Mac, problem solved [amazon.com] .

Re:what even happed to firewire 1600, 3200 it whou (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45832047)

That and TB superseded it as you can run USB, Ethernet, video, etc. over TB. Firewire was going to be a file transfer protocol mainly.

Re:what even happed to firewire 1600, 3200 it whou (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832055)

You should learn the difference between "then" and "than". Maybe then people will take you more seriously than they do now.

High Repairability ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45831923)

Other than CPU, RAM and very few other little things, everything else is proprietary and you will need to ditch out tons of money to get replacement.

Just use a tower... (1)

dlenmn (145080) | about 4 months ago | (#45832145)

Do the new Mac Pros have an impressive design? Yes.
Do power users need a tiny machine? No.
Do power users want external thunderbolt devices for everything not crammed into the case? I doubt it; I certainly wouldn't.

The old Mac Pro case (and the G5 case it's based on) are nice designs. The new Mac Pro design is cool, but unnecessary at best. I'd rather have a tower with space for internal drives, PCI Express slots, etc. All Apple had to do was upgrade the damn processor and motherboard in the old Mac Pro, and everything would be fine.

(Granted, I'm no longer an Apple user; I just roll my own desktops and put linux on them. Now, back to Newegg to look at high-end parts I can't really afford...)

Re: Just use a tower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832221)

I'd rather have faster connections to my SANs than more internal storage.

agreed, I prefer my cheese grater, replaced HDD (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 4 months ago | (#45832637)

Agreed. It's a WORKSTATION. It doesn't need to be a tiny little 11 pound can. A few weeks ago a drive was going out in my old Mac Pro. I slid out the drive carriage and slid in a spare sata drive I had laying around on a shelf.

... and 100% proprietary connectors (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 4 months ago | (#45832243)

being able to disassemble it does not mean you can fix it ... if you cant find a replacement part (like the graphics unit) which is a highly customized component with proprietary connectors, being able to easily take it out does not help.

Repairable? yes, affordable? probably not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45832511)

If it's anything like the old Mac Pro the fact that it's modular means nothing because the proprietary parts cost 3x as much as they're worth. I trashed a 2009 Mac Pro shortly after the warranty ran out because a "new" 8800GT cost $300. The next card up (a Radeon 5770 which actually isn't compatible with my machine according to Apple, but just happens to work) cost $350. Yes I know you can use a third party video card, but if it doesn't have Mac firmware you can't see any boot screens, so once your system crashes (and don't tell me Macs never crash) you're SOL unless you have another Mac video card laying around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...