Beta
×

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 Ships 8-Core MacPro

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the way-more-cores-than-the-earth dept.

Apple 628

ivan1024 writes "The Apple website is announcing the availability of an 8-core Mac Pro. The machine will ship with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 processors. Older models with the Dual-Core chips remain available. Base model with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Xeon processors start at $3997, (albeit with unacceptably minimal RAM or HD space; fully spec'd with dual 30" monitors and tons o' RAM/HD still over $10K... bummer)"

cancel ×

628 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Advantage? (4, Interesting)

martin_b1sh0p (673005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604083)

Not trolling, as this does sound awesome, but in reality how many applications out there really take advantage of these nifty multi-processor computers?

Re:Advantage? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604111)

Um video editing, composting effects, CGI, 3d rendering, etc....

that is what hose computers are designed for. Apple pretty much owns video and TV production now.

Re:Advantage? (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604179)

I thought TV/Video production was still in the hands of IRIX and Linux?

Never really understood the latter being there.

Re:Advantage? (5, Informative)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604251)

The front end is usually Avid or Apple software - and the Apple software only runs on OS X, and the Avid software can run on OS X. Linux boxes are often used for rendering farms. IRIX? Didn't SGI just discontinue IRIX?

Re:Advantage? (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604277)

Didn't know it was discontinued. Still, discontinued thigns often last quite a while after the fact.

a good chunk... (2, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604305)

...but they hardly own it. For one, they're still missing a killer 3D app. Yes, Maya is on the Mac - but you'll be hard-pressed to find many companies using Maya on said Mac. Nevermind that it's not an Apple app (unlike Shake (by acquisition), FCP, Logic Pro (by acquisition) etc.) If Autodesk hadn't grabbed it up, I would have expected Apple to do so.

Similarly, for editing/post, there's a ton of flint/flame/inferno/etc./etc. out there which are nowhere near Apple.

And that's completely ignoring everything hardware that you'll find in a typical broadcast facility. Avid, Thomson/Grass Valley, et al would have a chuckle at your post. So would Apple, for that matter - Apple isn't interested in replacing them at all... they're more on the software side and helping to sell Apple hardware.

Re:Advantage? (5, Funny)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604393)

composting effects
Hmmm... Didn't know macs were into manure these days.

Re:Advantage? (1)

mjpaci (33725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604937)

No kidding. Why is Greenpeace railing on Apple now?

Re:Advantage? (0, Troll)

ady1 (873490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604635)

Shouldn't they be named like iMacQuadDual8CoreProDigitalMediaEdition3D or something?

Re:Advantage? (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604167)

As long as Adobe Creative Suite 3 takes advantage (which it ought to), these will sell like hot cakes to designers.

Re:Advantage? (2, Informative)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604515)

From the beginning of the year, but still an interesting read:

Adobe and the Multi-threaded Client

http://www.illuminata.com/perspectives/?p=251 [illuminata.com]

Re:Advantage? (3, Interesting)

tuskentower (1027678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604237)

If you build it, they will come
It's a chicken and an egg problem. If you don't have a system like this then no one will write software for it. Besides, we're already going dual and quad core on our desktops.

Re:Advantage? (1)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604255)

Realtime raytracing, anyone?

Re:Advantage? (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604293)

I would say that Apple (not Dell) finally put out a machine capable of running Vista. [dodges flying chair]

Re:Advantage? (1)

operon (688118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604369)

Desktop Scientific Computing.

Re:Advantage? (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604723)

Speaking for myself, galaxy simulations. Especially galaxy collision.

[pardon me while I groove to this thought for a moment, Aaaahhh yeaaahh]

I would *love* to have this machine, oh god yes. As it is I have to wait several days for even small galaxy models to complete.

Oops, starting to drool....

Re:Advantage? (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604819)

Tons of 3d/4d rendering software can use these things. We used Cinema4d in my rendering classes and on dual-cpu mac's, it was effectively twice as fast, and the display showed 2 render lines moving at once. It literally can divide the workload between all the chips.

Re:Advantage? (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604827)

Computational Chemistry. Hook a couple of those babies together with 10G Myrinet, and really get somewhere. You'll still have enough cycles left over to nicely ray-trace a journal-cover for Nature when you're done.

There's also SETI@HOME; remind yourself that we're effectively alone 8 times faster than before!

Just their sweet spot (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604845)

Audio/Video mastering, analog to digital conversion, large format image processing.

What do use it for? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604103)

First post...maybe?

What do you use a fully configured system for? Video Editing?

Re:What do use it for? (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604189)

Solitaire and mindsweeper. Maybe some surfing the internet, and checking your email. Oh, and spreadsheets!

Okay, seriously now, how well does the Mac video editing software take advantage of the potential of this system? I was considering building a dual-quad core pc in about a year...for video editing...but I fear that the software packages just won't take advantage of the hardware. I this changing? I don't see the average consumer being smart enough to lobby for multi-threaded software....?

Re:What do use it for? (4, Interesting)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604345)

A while back some folks (Ars Technica, I think) swapped the dualies in the Mac Pro for these new quad cores and found out that it could not only see all the cores, but also utilize them. (Though they could never get it to peg the processors, even while playing 8 high-def videos on it.)

Mac OS X automatically sees and uses as many cores or processors that it has available. Final Cut Pro, the de facto video editing app for professionals these days, can see and use all these cores.

Now if you want to do that on the Windows side, I won't be of much assistance.

Correction: (1, Informative)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604733)

The de facto video editing app for professionals these days is Adobe Premiere. In fact, since Adobe Creative Suite 3 has support for universal binaries, the latest iteration of Premiere will be again be available on OSX.

Re:What do use it for? (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604879)

Mac OS X automatically sees and uses as many cores or processors that it has available.

"Wow, that's just amazing," He said, looking up from the, from 16 core, 65G RAM Linux box he's working on today. "An OS that, in at least one area, isn't artificially crippled for marketing reasons."

Now somebody who has serious hardware is going to chime in...

PS: I do like OS X. It's quite a nice client.

Re:What do use it for? (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605159)

I don't any more, but I ran a 32 node SP2 under AIX 4.3 as a personal machine for a while (it was in, ahem, testing mode, for a month before the unwashed masses were allowed onboard). I'm sure your Linux system would make a nice staging ground to test programs before they were sent to run for real. :~) Having been the herder for that beast, I'm more appreciative of the joys of smaller machines at times. At least they don't come with a boa-constrictor for a power-cord that has to be hard-wired into the bus-box.

Quite seriously, who makes your box? Sun, SGI, Cray, or home-built?

Re:What do use it for? (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605143)

Though they could never get it to peg the processors, even while playing 8 high-def videos on it.
OK, my main "workstation" now is an Atnlon 64 X2 3800+ on an Asus M2NPV-VM, a motherboard sold more as a "media center PC" than a real PC (it comes with the video/s-video/YPbPr connectors). I can easily play six 720p videos without a problem (on VLC). The secret is the integrated video: it has HD acceleration (nVidia PureVideo?). Point is, you don't really need the fastest processor on the block to abuse video. You just need dedicated hardware (a $10,000 card? I would buy it if I were a pro, and knew that it could kick a $10,000 computers' ass, which I'm pretty sure it will).

Re:What do use it for? (5, Funny)

woolio (927141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604529)

I don't see the average consumer being smart enough to lobby for multi-threaded software....?

I don't see the average programmer experienced enough to write multi-threaded software...

Re:What do use it for? (2, Funny)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604609)

probably best to install gentoo on it and compile everything yourself

Re:What do use it for? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604979)

Yes it is true that most software, Mac or MS, still can only usually run on one processor at a time. Even so having extra cores will make a noticeable boost since all the other background stuff that seems to inhabit the computer these days can soak up one core while your app runs solo on the other. There is the joy of multi-tasking as well. You can be working on a clip with your editing program while playing video/music at the same time without your machine missing a beat. The more cores you have the more heavy applications you can have open and working at the same time. The performance boost comes from the fact that you don't have to wait for it to finish what it is doing with one program before you can use another. Of course the first thing you'll want to add after an extra core is an extra monitor, RAM, and a RAID set-up to really see your set-up shine!

Re:What do use it for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604199)

First post...maybe?

Nope.

What do you use a fully configured system for? Video Editing?

That would make sense, maybe design, sound engineering, even coding is a lot easier when you have two screens. Anything you'd need an uber system for (whilst insisting it looks cool).

awesome machine (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604131)

While I do think this machine is awesome, and would love to have one... I am just wondering what applications out there would take full advantage of having 8 cores and 2 processors in the machine? I am sure NASA or some physics departments at some random university could, but what else? Anyone have any examples of what such a powerful computer could be used for business wise? I'm sure it would cut down the application issues I deal with on older mal-formed code I work on everyday to try to enhance... lol.

Re:awesome machine (4, Funny)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604217)

Yeah, Apple's totally missing the boat. If only they made some sort of "mini" Mac for consumers, or a Mac notebook. They could call that a Mac Book or something.

Re:awesome machine (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604343)

Yeah right. Keep dreaming...

Re:awesome machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604419)

...And made them reasonably priced...

Re:awesome machine (3, Interesting)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604481)

Um, he was wondering what markets this targeted, not complaining that something less powerful and less expensive wasn't available. Such a response is rather nasty and uncalled for given it isn't even relevant to the gp.

It is a reasonable question. The general answer is a lot of niche markets, but not many general markets.
- Video/multimedia editing at real time or faster than real time
- Raytracing/3D image generation
- High-end data analysis (quite good for most sciences)
- Financial/Business data analysis

Re:awesome machine (1)

dafz1 (604262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604551)

Mac Book? That's a stupid name. Nobody would buy a notebook called a Mac Book.

Powerbook, that's a name people would like!

Re:awesome machine (1)

juanbobo (847504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604221)

All the software needs to support is threading and most software that can really benefit from threading has it these days.

Re:awesome machine (1)

throatmonster (147275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604401)

They need that much horsepower to encode and decode 1080p H.264.

Re:awesome machine (2, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604445)

Pretty much any heavy developer work can benefit from such a system. When you're running databases, messaging applications, appservers, webservers, clients, etc, it can add processes quickly, not to mention the DB alone could use all 8 cores.

Stop me if you've heard this one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604579)

"640K RAM should be enough for anyone"
"32-bit should be enough for anyone"
"4GB limit on hard drives? Who is going to use a whole 4GB?"
"Besides Photoshop, what software is ever going to use BOTH processors?"

If nothing else, it would be a great machine to finally be able to run Vista!

Re:awesome machine (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604659)

For example for render farms or graphics workstations, or anything that requires tons of processing power, preferably on one machine than networked solution. Many graphicians would like it if photoshop would support it. (Pov-Ray already does).

No price drops on old configurations (2, Informative)

k2enemy (555744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604149)

I was really hoping there would be price drops on the quad core configurations. Or at least upgraded video cards.

Re:No price drops on old configurations (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604229)

No sign of the expected Cinema Displays with iSight built in either. Apple discontinued their add-on iSight camera back in December, so MacPro users have no official way of using iChat's video capabilities without using a 3rd party webcam or trawling eBay for an old unit.

Technological superiority at last! (4, Interesting)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604157)

IIRC, Neither Dell nor HP have yet shipped duel-3GHz quad core desktop machines, which means that Apple officially makes the fastest Intel desktop PC in the world.

As a longtime mac user, I must admit that it feels inordinately good to say that.;-)

Re:Technological superiority at last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604245)

Well, it's just part of the deal Jobs secured with Intel : Apple will always receive first the newest cpus at the best price.
The only problem is : how long will Intel respect the deal? As Apple PC sales grow, OSX mindshare grows, and the MS monopoly declines. How long before Ballmer phones Intel's CEO to force them to stop selling hot cpus to Apple?

Re:Technological superiority at last! (0, Flamebait)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604347)

As a longtime mac user, I must admit that it feels inordinately good to say that.;-)

As long as you're not one of those guys that equates PC=Windows, won't admit that Microsoft had decent multitasking before mac, Windows NT and 2000 were stellar compared to contemporaries, and thinkpads have superior (for a laptop, this means more durable) hardware. God, I run into some of the weirdest Mac theologians. They will say things that are false, and documented as such, and you can tell them that you're a fucking computer technician that is NOT in fact brainwashed by Microsoft, and you run Linux at home, and you work on Macs and have owned a Mac, and they will resort to faith-based statements.

I always give my girlfriend shit when something bad happens on her mac, I say, "That doesn't happen on PCs." And now her 6-month old Powerbook is slowly crapping out, and as it dies, I will be vindicated. Ahhhh, sweet vindication.
-Nathan

Re:Technological superiority at last! (4, Funny)

Carthag (643047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604387)

You sound like the PC version of the Mac guys you gripe about. :)

Re:Technological superiority at last! (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604541)

You sound like the PC version of the Mac guys you gripe about. :)

It's only revenge, my friend. And I only do it out of spite. :-)

Re:Technological superiority at last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604503)

That's a great way to ensure getting some poontang from your GF.

GF: Sweetie, my Mac is having trouble again.
You: lolz, yUo should have gotten a sUp3r10r PC, biatch!

Re:Technological superiority at last! (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604775)

That's a great way to ensure getting some poontang from your GF.

It's worked so far. But then, I'm totally #@\/\/+. We've actually stopped talking about Macs, because she gets emotional. I do my duty, though. Deprogramming someone's hard work. I mean, how many times do you think I had the Since-the-Intel-switch-it's-essentially-the-same-h ardware-with-a-different-MoBo-firmware conversation. A lot.

A lot. Plus the There-was-only-one-brief-run-of-Titanium-Powerbook s-now-they're-all-aluminum conversation took a while. And this is all born out of the fact that she bitches about windows when she doesn't really know much about it, and her father's experience with windows is being at the mercy of a sysadmin. I think Macs are great. I don't think Steve Jobs is Jesus. I actually try to look at the whole deal objectively.

And objectively, I object to statements such as:
Mac is and always has been superior to Windows in every way. (why not just read a side by side run-down of the OSes)
The hardware is better. (they've been saying their processors were superior and that set them apart, now they say that the processor is the same, which is somehow "innovative." What happened to the superior processor? Also search for known issues with Mac hardware)

Plus, Mac people displace their hatred of Windows onto the hardware. It's like Lenny Bruce's bit about confusing the person with the institution. It doesn't make any sense. And you can hardly beat the sense into people like that.

I could go on, but I've ranted enough.

Re:Technological superiority at last! (5, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604379)

duel-3GHz

Actually, Intel hasn't yet shipped the Quattro Quad Core Core 2 Dueling Dualist Duo - that is coming later this month.

Apple is using the Core 2 Quad in this box (which lacks the swashbuckling extensions).

Re:Technological superiority at last! (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605079)

Does it come with a Rose Bride? If so, sign me up!

Re:Technological superiority at last! (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604417)

well if you want an ultra-fast PC you dont look to Dell or HP generally, you look at the boutique vendors or build your own. but, yes, i dont konw of any pre-built with dual quad core.

they made an odd choice for video cards, though. you get three choices, none of which are top of the line: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, ATI Radeon X1900 XT, NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. the boutique PC vendors have been using nVidia's top of the line 8800 series cards, often two of them in SLI, for months now.

so the apple wins hands down for CPU intensive stuff, but a dual 8800 GTX PC could possibly beat it out in graphics-intensive games.

Re:Technological superiority at last! (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604513)

This isn't really a gaming machine. It's a Mac, after all. The Quadro FX 4500 is pretty near top of the line for a 3D workstation. I'm surprised they don't offer a Quadro FX 5600 though.

Re:Technological superiority at last! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604457)

As a long time mac user, what were you saying a couple of years ago? "Oh the G4 is so much better than anything intel makes... hah, hah... bunny suites... intel sucks. Funny how those long time megahertz myth mac users are singing the new song.

I'm glad that all those mac users finally saw the light.

plus (0, Troll)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604483)

look:
http://www.sharbor.com/products/TYNN5450004.html [sharbor.com]

There are already several people running Windows, Linux, and BSD on a dual quad-core setup. They just don't have to pay a premium for specialty molded plastic. Or spend $299 on 2 sticks of 512MB DDR2. Or $329 for an unnamed brand of 500GB SATA 3GB/s drive.
-Nathan

RAM/vidcard deficiencies are no big deal... (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604163)

Even w/ the G5 series, I was able to spec' out and buy my own RAM (2GB of PC 3200) for a lot less than Apple charges per GB of their 'blessed' stuff. 2-1/2 years later, everything is chugging along just fine (I'm typing this missive on the very same machine). I'm not sure if the vidcard's BIOS has changed since the Intel switch, but I suspect that someone has already figured out if one can simply get a std. PC vidcard or not and simply go with that (you could in the G5's, but it required a BIOS flash first).

While most Mac folks would think it anathema to do it, I've always had no probs with getting a Mac w/ only the CPU strength I want, then buffing out the hardware specs everywhere else once I got it home - saves tons of cash that way.

/P

Re:RAM/vidcard deficiencies are no big deal... (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604313)

Dude, the G5s didn't use DDR2 ECC DIMMS, so the price per Meg is higher than the bog-standard PC3200 DIMMS our G5s use anyway! Hell, I've been buying 3rd party memory, hard and optical drives, etc. since the days of my G4, 7 years ago. Still have that G4, and use it almost daily for audio work.

Buy globally, upgrade locally! :)

Re:RAM/vidcard deficiencies are no big deal... (2, Interesting)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604413)

Lots of Mac users do that. Apple has historically overcharged for RAM. They've gotten a bit better about HDs, but Crucial (or other vendor of choice) can just about always beat Apple's prices for memory.

Re:RAM/vidcard deficiencies are no big deal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604573)

Even w/ the G5 series, I was able to spec' out and buy my own RAM (2GB of PC 3200) for a lot less than Apple charges per GB of their 'blessed' stuff.

I'm debating this myself for my Mac Pro purchase. The advantage of buying RAM (or any other item) from Apple as a BTO option is that Apple Care it covers the RAM as well. Only an advantage if you buy Apple Care of course. However, for the price of adding 1 GB (2 x 512MB) to configuration, I can buy 2 GB (2 x 1GB) from Crucial and have a few dollars to spare. Not only is it much less expensive, I get 1GB modules instead of 512MB. I'm leaning towards buying the RAM seperate as the cost through Apple doesn't justify the benefits.

And now hords run to buy them (1)

badran (973386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604165)

SO were is the link to the "I want to buy it right now"page... so that hords of slashdoter would run and start ........... ahh never mind let me get back to saving for a used p2 :p

Quick Mac Buying Tip (3, Informative)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604171)

Never buy anything from Apple that you can't install yourself. For the Mac Pro, Apple charges $700 for 4GB (4x1GB) of RAM. You can get the same amount of RAM from DealRam [dealnews.com] for $500. The same goes for hard drives. Apple charges you $329 for a 500GB SATA drive, which you can get from NewEgg for around $200. [newegg.com] Granted, these aren't covered by your warranty, but they often have a manufacturer's warranty

I've often though the lack of user serviceable parts in the Mac Mini was designed to sell more RAM at Apple's hugely inflated prices.

Re:Quick Mac Buying Tip (2, Informative)

sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604333)

Funny the 4 mac minis i own i have upgraded all the ram myself. Maybe its just you who cannot seem to figure out how to upgrade the ram. I mean there are wholes site on the internet devoted to this. BTW...I can buy ram cheaper online then from dell. What is your point?

Re:Quick Mac Buying Tip (-1)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604523)

Well, it voids the warranty, which most people try to avoid. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.) And the type of folks who buy the Mac Mini (my parents, for one) aren't generally the same ones who are going to go about mucking about inside their case, even if it is user serviceable.

Flip through CDW's catalog recently? (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604807)

They want almost $380 just for 1GB RAM for your average IBM or HP blade server. In this realm, parts and upgrades have little to do with cheapo desktop components or pricing.

Re:Quick Mac Buying Tip (1)

NSIM (953498) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604897)

Apple charges $700 for 4GB (4x1GB) of RAM. You can get the same amount of RAM from DealRam for $500.

That must be some fancy RAM, I bought 4x1GB sticks of 667MHZ DDR2-DRAM from Frys a couple of weeks ago for $280 + tax

Re:Quick Mac Buying Tip (2, Informative)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604991)

Remeber the Pros, like the XServes, take ECC RAM. No matter who you buy it from, it isn't cheap. Apple's price for the Pro isn't much more than (~$140 at this point), than decent third-party RAM. (4 1GB ECC from Crucial is $560, 2x2GB is $840) The HD's may be more comparable, but check access time, cache size, and warranty.

The only hard part about upgrading the RAM in a mini is not panicking at the plastic-popping sounds you get when you crack the case. Two sharpened putty knives (or lab spatulas), and you're golden. I did the memory and added wireless to mine at the same time, and I'm typing on it now, six months later. The mini is designed like apple's DRM; it prevents the casual tinkerer from getting inside of it, voiding their warranty, then having a fit on the phone.

This will help with the performance problems ... (4, Funny)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604175)

Since Apple have now fixed Boot Camp so that you can run Vista, this new hardware will help with the Vista performance problems.

sex w1rth a goat (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604303)

thatn should be These early real problems that bulk of the FrreBSD Distro is done Here like they are Come to make sure the to the crowd in progress. Any

Where's the updated video card? (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604403)

I'm rather disappointed in this. There were rumors that they'd put a top-of-the-line ATI video card with Crossfire in the 8-core machines (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2492).

Yes it's a workstation. Yes, it's not meant for games. But putting those cards in it would give Apple a significant salvo to fire into the boutique camp. I know a number of gamers who would buy them (outside the video card the machine is awesome).

8-core? Nice. But Apple, enough is enough: put a premium video card in these things. Coupling a 7300GT with a Mac Pro (the basic configuration) should be classified as a low-level travesty.

Re:Where's the updated video card? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604907)

Crossfire will need a new chipset and they should drop the price of the dual dual-core down to fill the gap form the mini to the mac pro or come out with a system that uses a desktop cpu, ram, video card, and HD.

Re:Where's the updated video card? (1)

MaestroRC (190789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604963)

I know others have said it, and you even hinted at it yourself. There is a key thing that most people miss when looking at the Mac Pro (or G5's when they were out), which is they are specifically a WORKSTATION. The kind of WORKSTATION that does the kind of WORK that involves a *lot* of processing power, such as physics, bioinformatics, and video/image crunching. These machines, as much as people ogle over how well they could play a game if they only had a better video card, are not gaming machines. Apple has yet to kick into that market, because there really and truly aren't many (if any) games that would require the power of a Mac Pro to work well that run under OS X. Also, I personally would have to say from my experience with Apple, that any game publisher that wanted to target just the Mac Pro for a particular game would not be something that Apple would really care for - they want the games to be left to the consumers, and for consumers that means iMac, Mac Mini, or MacBook. If it can't run well on one of those, then they don't really want to get into it.

Also, as much as people bitch about the price of a spec'd out Mac Pro - remember that again this is a WORKSTATION that BUSINESSES would be buying for WORK. Businesses don't generally care that much about the price as long as the computer can get the job done as fast as possible. This also means that the largest part of the market for these machines don't care about getting the best deal on RAM or hard drives or video cards. They want to be able to go to one place, click a few options, and get their computer as soon as possible, and get it up and running with as little amount of effort as possible to make it do the WORK they bought it for.

If you are so sensitive about the price of it that you have to go out and find RAM, disks, and a video card to put in it that will save you a couple hundred dollars on a $4-5000 purchase, you're either a total penny pincher, or you don't need to be buying the machine in the first place.

Remember - this machine won't run almost all of the games and programs on the market any faster than a dual or quad core machine, it's for a particular market with the needs of lots of CPU power. In general, the people that want these machines don't care about the video card (unless they're using it for video editing, but then they want a VERY high end one specific for that), sometimes don't care about the RAM (unless a large data set needs to be available in RAM), and a lot of times don't care about the disk space (usually they have a lot of space on a network setup on an XServe or the like). This means that Apple is going to put up the bare bones configuration with all the CPU power, and let the businesses pick how much RAM, disk, and what kind of video card they want. Yes, this machine is for a niche market, but it's for a LOT of niche markets that all have different needs. Instead of having 20 different "base" configurations, they have one, and assume that if you're buying one you know enough about what you need to pick the parts individually.

That way you don't have someone who is going to set these things up in a headless environment with an XServe RAID buying a machine with a $600 video card and $400 worth of disk drive they don't need, since all that is going to be on the disk anyhow is the operating system (think compile farm or computation cluster).

No new video cards (3, Interesting)

superangrybrit (600375) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604437)

7300 is pretty low end stuff.

How about updated NVIDIA 8800 class video cards?

$175 keyboard (1, Funny)

athloi (1075845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604451)

Last time I bought a Mac, in the 1980s, they charged me $175 for the extended keyboard. Do they still do that?

boot camp issues (1)

Jah Shaka (562375) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604501)

bootcamp on the mac pro running vista is limited to 32bit only and suffers from ACPI issues...

An apple with more than one core ... (5, Funny)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604571)

that would be some sort of freak of nature. I wouldn't eat it.

Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

spike2131 (468840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604587)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those things...

still over $10K... bummer (-1, Flamebait)

tinpipes (179194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604623)

Apple's stuff has been geared toward the rich elitist, always overpriced. Go ahead, flame me, but prove me wrong, OK? Don't tell me of their isolated instances of philanthropy to schools et cetera. Can you say smoke-screen? If Apple wanted to conquer the personal computer world, even a modest price decrease would get them there. Volume sales = increase in profit. Notice I did not attack the always high quality on both the SW and HW sides of the Apple equation. Come one Apple, lots of disgruntled Windows users want to switch, particularly to notebook form factors; however, our pockets aren't so deep as to justify $2K to $3K for a decent machine. I'm sitting out, running a couple Linux machines on outdated (by Apple and MS standards) HW, and will continue w/XP and Win 2K as long as they'll run on my notebooks. Vista's a non-starter for me as it requires a substantial new investment. Who do Apple and MS think we are, bottomless money machines??? I've got an answer to both companies, @*&#! NO.

Re:still over $10K... bummer (1)

tinpipes (179194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604687)

Yup, the machine manufacturers are completely culpable in this!

I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (0, Troll)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604689)

Sure, I will get modded down by Apple zealots.

I can't understand why someone would buy an Apple for anything other than a normal home desktop. I just interviewed with a small growing company. Every single desktop they had were Apple. It didn't matter what it was doing, they were all Apple. Considering they could have had *just as good* for cheaper that did the same thing (and more depending on what you needed it to do) I think it was a very dumb and wasteful thing to do; especially for a small company. The only thing I saw that was from Apple that was a VERY good choice was their XServer RAID that was running not OS X, but OpenFiler (openfiler.org) project. They were using for off site replication from their NetApps which IMHO is absolutely brilliant.

BTW, Apple's XServer RAID is a rebranded LSI Logic RAID. Very cheap compared to other options and slapping OpenFiler on top of it is a very powerful and cheap setup. I recommend it to anyone looking for mass storage on the cheap side.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (5, Insightful)

MidKnight (19766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604931)

I just interviewed with a small growing company. Every single desktop they had were Apple..... Considering they could have had *just as good* for cheaper that did the same thing ... I think it was a very dumb and wasteful thing to do....

I wonder, since they are a small company, how big was their IT department? I run a small S/W consulting company (me, a few subcontractors, support folks for large projects), and we use Apple for pretty much everything except when a client requires something else. We have no IT guy. We have no virus scares. We have no FAQ for how to connect to the shared NAS box.

Sure, we could buy cheaper hardware, but then we'd have to worry about it and waste billable time dealing with the associated pain points. I can say that, for a small company, an Apple/OS X infrastructure is definitely cheaper in the long run.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (2, Interesting)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605127)

The entire company is high end IT except the single HR person. It's a custom hosting/access company. There are no techs that fix your computer and customer support comes from the engineers. If you couldn't fix it yourself, you wouldn't be there.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604945)

I can't understand...

If you do get modded down, the above quote is the real reason why.

The people who created the job you interviewed for chose Apple for some reason. Maybe for the quality. Maybe TCO. Maybe the stability of a Unix base. There's plenty of reasons, and to be on the Internet and not know any of them is really ignorant.

Did you exhibit this disdain for their decision making in your interview?

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (5, Insightful)

Danma (546476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604949)

The first thing I did this morning was price a machine versus an equivalent machine from Dell and found the Mac Pro, despite having slightly faster processors (since Dell only offers 2.66GHz quad-cores) was actually a few hundred dollars cheaper. I believe that you have made the assumption that Apple is automatically more expensive, always, than their competitors when that is not always the case. In the case of the Intel-based Mac Pro machines, they have often been competitively priced against Dell etc. You should stay open minded about these things. Otherwise, you're just as guilty as Apple zealots of making blanket statements.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (1)

vonFinkelstien (687265) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605001)

Some people consider having less computer hassles (things "just work" out of the box) and lower IT employment costs a better investment than cut-rate PC with higher hassles per seat and higher IT employment costs.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18605009)

Is their business supporting computers or doing something else? They probably know the TCO game and made the call they thought was best. You probably don't know enough after one interview to judge their IT decisions.

Re:I don't understand why someone would buy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18605099)

I own a small business. And I run 100% Apple. You're free to run Windows or Linux, but I will secretly laugh at you for calling my choice a waste. I used to be an Apple zealot, but that was back before I actually operated a business with employees. Now that I own my own business, it's entirely a business choice, and I could care less what manufacturer it is from.

Truth is, over the years, Apple has proved to me time and time again that they have a longer life expectancy. Not just the hardware, but the OS, software, and whatever else counts to actually keep the machines usefull. In addition to that, the security issues are less of a problem. OS updates don't cause the basic apps I use to stop operating or get erradic on me or my employees. In short, they just run, and they run very well, and for a long time. As a business decision, this makes much more sense than buying a cheap PC (which may be as much as 40% cheaper) which will not last as long (hardware wise), won't break down as often (hardware and software wise), will have a longer life expectancy (mostly an OS issue these days) and won't need to be updated every other day, or interupt the user with a virus scan. The reason we went 100% Mac, regardless of the job in question, was that it was simply easier (which means cheaper) to maintain a single platform. We don't have an IT department, and our employees actually have work to do other than tinkering on their computers.

Finally, no, this wasn't a "gut feeling". Computer purchases were not cheap, and my expected TCO was not cheap either, so I did a (simple) calculation of costs as a comparison. For us, it turned out that a Mac would be 15% cheaper overall than a Dell with Windows (Linux was not an option, unless I, the CEO, was expected to maintain everyone's computer for them), over an expected 4 year life span (during which certain models for certain use will actually be replaced, which is included in the cost simulation).

More on the CPU (1)

AnotherDaveB (912424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604711)

Charlie Demerjian has an article up about the Intel QX6800 [theinquirer.net] .

We hear the parts are going to be closer to 150W than 120W initially. If you think about it, Kentsfield at 120W is 2x 65W 2.67GHz Conroes. 2.93 Conroes are 80W, so two of them minus a little is about 150W. The math works out.

The real QX6800s will come out in Q3 with a new stepping of the core Core number core numeral 2. This new stepping will drop power we are told 'substantially', and pave the way for volume QX6800 production.

Fanboi? (1)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604719)

Just out of curiosity, does the fact that just going to the Apple website make me tingle a little make me a fanboi?

Re:Fanboi? (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604917)

That depends if it's accompanied by a burning sensation in the loins or not.

USA only? (3, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604741)

No sign of 8-core machines in the UK Apple Store [apple.com] . Just a glitch or are we going to have to wait a bit longer over here? Lets hope Apple doesn't make us wait as long for their 8-core machine as Sony did for theirs (the PS3).

John Dvorak says don't do it (-1, Troll)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604757)

MS fanboys the world over chime in "It's the worst possible thing Apple could evah do!!!! Kill it before it multiplies!!!!!"

8 slots for up to 16 GB of ECC Ram (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18604761)

That's from the Website. Up to 16 GB of ECC that's not bad ;)

Not that easy to find when you built your PCs yourself :-/

Upgrades? (2, Interesting)

ab (5715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604771)

I'd like to see Apple offer an upgrade from a 4- to an 8-processor machine too. I'm not taxing my quad at the moment, but it'd be nice to have official acknowledgment of this upgrade path. (Yeah, we could DIY, but a lot of people would feel better modding a high-end machine in an official way.)

Even with Apple 30" displays being $1800 ($1600 higher ed) new (Dell's is cheaper now too- didn't used to be), I doubt I'd add a second one- my desk isn't big enough! I highly recommend the 30" though. It's even nicer than you'd think.

ab

8 cores ought to be enough for anyone (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604871)

But seriously, unless you're gonna keep all 8 cores cooking a lot, or you do a lot of seriously high-end video work or something else where speed above all else matters, they'll be a waste. And they cost $1500 more than the standard (2.66 GHz) model. So, for $4,000, you can get a 3 GHz 8-way Mac Pro. Or, for $4,400, you could get two 2 GHz 4-way Mac Pros. Most people could probably get more done with two good machines than one great one for (roughly) the same money.

Re:8 cores ought to be enough for anyone (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605003)

But seriously, unless you're gonna keep all 8 cores cooking a lot, or you do a lot of seriously high-end video work or something else where speed above all else matters, they'll be a waste.

OK...

I'm sorry, but is Apple running a "Buy an 8-Core Mac for your grandma" campaign or something?

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604951)

Ok, now it's officially "wicked fast"* .

* Points to who remembers the turd this was originally applied to.

When you try to make it as expensive as possible.. (2, Informative)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18604989)

"The Apple website is announcing the availability of an 8-core Mac Pro. The machine will ship with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 processors. Older models with the Dual-Core chips remain available. Base model with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Xeon processors start at $3997, (albeit with unacceptably minimal RAM or HD space; fully spec'd with dual 30" monitors and tons o' RAM/HD still over $10K... bummer)"
I know I'm redundant on this one but ...

You've got $3,600 in displays alone - that's more than 1/3 of the price. Also, Apple is notorious for overpricing hard drives and memory. Buy the fastest CPUs and get everything else from someone else, including the displays (get'em from Dell), and you'll save 20%+.

Sun have had 8 cores for ages.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18605007)

and on one physical CPU. And it's cheaper than an Apple.

http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t1000/ [sun.com]

Why is this even news?

Boring. (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#18605049)

Because everyone knew they were coming eventually.

Now, a single-socket, dual-core Mac Pro (or similar), *that* would be news.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?