Is the 2.8 ghz Quad still a good upgrade from an iMac?

[thekev]

Thanks for your comments thekey. I appreciate your editing my initial writing errors too!!!!

And the appeal of the mac is its applications ... things like Aperture, iphoto and such. But ... Adobe is closing the gap a lot with such software. They are rip off merchants though ... if only Apple would bring out a good Photoshop layering program for $150 ... but they haven't even done that. Yet Photoshop has focussed on the Windows world. Apple should buy Quark, and fill in the blanks that exist in their photo / video / web Apps for the Mac OS. And a low cost per output desktop is a key to that IMO. But because of the consumer devices, there is no pressure to do so IMO. its just becoming a niche for those still loyal or too lazy to change IMO.

And annoyingly, their state of the art machine is the Macbook Pro Retina. Which costs less than a base Mac Pro. And its faster than a base Mac Pro too, and it has Thunderbolt and USB-3, and for what it is, compares with PC notebooks for performance & quality versus cost. In comparison, the desktops don't at the moment IMO. Except for those Apps and the OS .

I guess I could see them buying Quark. Adobe has been beating their asses for a very long time. Quark Express started to fade out years ago. I don't care for Aperture for many reasons. Lightroom protects the data in a far lighter manner with less shuffling of files. It just assigns a metadata folder to hold recipes. They keep some of the prior color engine profiles for older versions too. Anyway it's a decent program, but Adobe has been trending toward some highly draconian licensing terms on its professional products. With Apple they don't necessarily value control as much as I do. It's always about ease of use, and while that can be important, I tend to value control over basically everything else. What would interest me is something like Mari with a nice 2d paint kit, but I doubt we'll ever see that, especially not at the sub $1k level. I just don't like the way Apple prioritizes in their software. In terms of Adobe, applications like photoshop have remained behind in some areas, but it remains a standard. Adobe's solution is to try to make it an annual license so as to lock in revenue streams regardless of their slow ass development cycles. I will tell you this, Wacom drivers under Windows 7 are stable, yet Lion has some weird issues. You can get better gpu drivers under Windows although you have to watch what you purchase. If you're using a wide gamut display like an NEC or Eizo, they're really meant to be driven by 10 bit connections. It helps with the shadow values on some of the adobe rgb displays. Unfortunately this hasn't been possible in OSX since leopard. When I think about it, I'm not sure they'd even know what to do with Quark other than put it out of its misery.

I'm not sure I corrected any real errors from you. I write quickly, so I'd have to check. Anyway if Adobe can implement more things via OpenCL and get their OpenGL drawing version up to date with Mountain Lion (hopefully apple updates the frameworks to facilitate this as no one has adopted it), those would be the biggest improvements. I can run with some really big files in real time at decent framerates. One of my issues is that it sucks working with spherical hdrs. They started adding ibl nodes to their suite yet 32 bit mode and their linear math is still behind. It's just kind of the cart before the horse here.

 

[wallysb01]

I'm personally debating moving away from Apple to some degree. I will probably go through with it. It's annoying figuring out what to buy, but the PC end, especially self building offers a lot of options in terms of configuration. Service isn't that big of an issue. If the mobo is expensive I'd look at service terms prior to purchase. If it's a company with slow warranty service, I'd have to plan on buying a new part if one went bad. Overall it's typically the research that's more time consuming than actually building something. I could easily build one during the morning hours of any given weekend with whatever parts I want (just referring to the idea that it's a big hit on time to physically build a single computer).

For me personally, I've actually been moving more towards Macs, even though it seems what I really need them for is getting neglected. That's generally because its not only me, but my work that makes Macs a natural choice. Apple has done well to make it easy to use multiple Mac computers. If it were just me, I'd have my work computers running linux, taking away the desire to have home computers also be macs, but that's not happening.

Also, certainly its the research that takes the most time when planning out a new build. I've played around with the idea of building a hackintosh for almost a year, reading up, finding parts, then not pulling the trigger only to do it again a few months later. I could have built 10 computers in the time I've built none. I would certainly like to do, but I just haven't felt like the time is right between the available technology and my needs. Maybe in a few months, I'll build a HTPC that will run OSX using an Ivy Bridge i3 that also doubles as a home server. As much as Apple screwed the pooch with the Mac Pro, I think that not making a reasonable desktop box is still their biggest mistake. Something like a Mac mini but with desktop parts would certainly solve my problem.

 

[adr1974]

not trying to jack the thread, but along similar lines to the question posed by the OP: deciding whether to wait for new iMac, or purchase used Mac Pro. Don't need the MP for professional uses, but have always enjoyed the expandability & tinkering around. Trying to decide between a new 3.2 quad or a used 2010 2.4 8-core. Both would be more than enough from a performance perspective, and in a few years I could drop in two W3680s and extend the life a few years...

 

[kaputsport]

2008 twin 2.8 Mhz processors, and then add a contempory screen card. and perhaps a WiFi card. And likely, a new HD.

This is what I did... Sort of.

I moved from a 2006 24" iMac, and bought a single 2.8 3,1 mac pro. Got a second processor and heat sink for under $150, added 8GB of ram, and bought a 30" cinema display. It still needs some attention, but scored an 11282 in geekbench, and runs final cut very well.

I did make sure I bought one with an 8800 GT video card to hold me over, and it came with a 400gb and 2TB drives already. Total price spent on monitor, computer and upgrades was $2000. If I spend another $160, I'll have 16gb of ram, and another $200 for a 5770, and maybe a few more massive drives, and I am pretty much done with the hardware for now. Adding an audio interface and more speakers (Rokit 6se in white with matching white sub). I have the sub and two mains, but I want a full 5.1 surround with matching monitors. I only need 3 more, and an interface that can handle 6 outputs.

I found this route to be a great deal. Sure, I could have gone with a smaller monitor, and I could have gone with a slightly newer machine, but in the end, I am over 11,000 in geek bench, and I can work now. It is slightly "future proof" in that it can run Mountain Lion (even though I am not upgrading) and is powerful enough to do whatever I need it to do.

If you need more power, get a newer one if you can afford it, but if you don't need the massive performance of the new ones, and want to save a little, the 3,1 is still not a bad machine.

 

[Melbourne Park]

.

----------

I guess I could see them buying Quark. Adobe has been beating their asses for a very long time. Quark Express started to fade out years ago. I don't care for Aperture for many reasons. Lightroom protects the data in a far lighter manner with less shuffling of files. It just assigns a metadata folder to hold recipes. They keep some of the prior color engine profiles for older versions too. Anyway it's a decent program, but Adobe has been trending toward some highly draconian licensing terms on its professional products. With Apple they don't necessarily value control as much as I do. It's always about ease of use, and while that can be important, I tend to value control over basically everything else. What would interest me is something like Mari with a nice 2d paint kit, but I doubt we'll ever see that, especially not at the sub $1k level. I just don't like the way Apple prioritizes in their software. In terms of Adobe, applications like photoshop have remained behind in some areas, but it remains a standard. Adobe's solution is to try to make it an annual license so as to lock in revenue streams regardless of their slow ass development cycles.

You may be right ... but if Apple bought Quark, they'd leave the company people there, and they'd market the product better. They'd replace Pages with Quark too. And they'd fund the company to get better net products from Apple into the market as well.

There's no leverage from Adobe for Apple. Adobe now makes much more money from Windows I'd bet. And people can swap to windows often without even getting a new license for their Adobe software.

As far as iPhoto goes - on the iPad, iPhoto gets bad reviews for the program there ... but I think its amazing there. You have a brushes pallet, and you select a brush, like smooth, and with your finger, you rub out someone's wrinkles, intuitively. With no learning necessary. If the zoom function was better, it would be very good. No real shadow controls compared to the desktop, but ... I guess if iPhoto was like that on the macs, people would not buy aperture. Which is very low cost anyway - under half Lightroom's cost. And the cost of photoshop is outrageous IMO. Except that no one has brought out a decent competitor. I've never understood why. I'd bet if you got the brains at Quark together with the Aperture and Final Cut people, you'd get a good photoshop competitor out there.

 

[thekev]

I guess if iPhoto was like that on the macs, people would not buy aperture. Which is very low cost anyway - under half Lightroom's cost. And the cost of photoshop is outrageous IMO. Except that no one has brought out a decent competitor. I've never understood why.

I don't feel Apple does that well with professional market products. It's just not their thing. They ran Shake into the ground. FCPX was missing a number of things when it debuted, yet they cut off licensing options for the old version. I don't see where they would make a difference here. The publishing market has been shrinking, and that software is from a different era.

Photoshop's cost wasn't that bad. It's just that rather than constantly adding features, they could polish some of the tool set and better integrate certain workflows. I've mentioned the issue of spherical hdri there. They have a polar coordinate workspace available, yet you can't make the switch in 32 bit mode (note spherical hdri comment). I mention broken workflow issues there as photoshop has attempted to integrate 3d features with a higher pricetag (also vanishing point and a couple other things). They include a couple useful features and several half baked ones and charge double in upgrade fees for the use of them. My point with the hdri is that making spherical HDRi files in PS is a clunky process, yet they implemented further 3d functions and a raytracing engine in both PS and After Effects. The pressure sensitive brush adjustments could also use some work, but not everyone really makes heavy use of them. They've always been a little awkward as you can't use a wacom tablet exactly like a traditional drawing tool. If you tilt too far it causes problems.

Their licensing also annoys me. Each year they try to find ways to work in hidden price bumps due to the amount of software they're dragging along. This includes suites, a rental model that comes out significantly higher for existing customers, and the silly PS version split (normal and extended). Anyway I share some of your irritation, but Apple isn't the one I'd like to see in their place. Really I'd prefer something like Mari with a 2d toolset included, but I doubt they'd be able to dethrone Adobe given that it's published by a much smaller company.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Really I'd prefer something like Mari with a 2d toolset included, but I doubt they'd be able to dethrone Adobe given that it's published by a much smaller company.

And that's the point. Apple need some exclusive hero products. They have them for the home market, but they need them for business. Like a games console, the exclusives are a key to buying.

Microsoft bought 10% of Apple at one time ... when Gates came back, he rang Bill, and Bill gave him a hand. It helped a lot too.

So, if Apple - who have so much cash that they are starting to pay dividends for the first time in their history - invested in Mari, it could only help Apple. It puzzles me that they don't.

And small is only a marketing disadvantage, if the software is good. Because marketing benefits from economies of scale. And Apple could achieve that, they do have a good distribution model now, via their own downloadable channel.

I think that the issue with Apple, is that the computer division is very different from what I call the "device" division - iPod, iPhone, iPad, and whatever other consumer and portable devices they might come up with. They are almost completely different businesses.

The great thing with Jobs, was that he allowed a product to be killed by another new idea. I presume the iPhone has killed the iPod. And the notebooks are threatened by the Pads. That;s healthy IMO. It leads to innovation.

But ... it can mean that key decisions can loose some urgency and maybe be less than best decisions in the computer businesses that have been there for some time. Apple sees the world as moving away from traditional computers, due to the iPad and iPhone concept. Oracle's early idea of downloading everything, a cloud based way of information works. And now its actually happening. But there still is a market for desktops, and if a CEO like Cook takes his eyes of that sector's best interests, then mistakes can be made.

Apple did miracles porting OSX to Intel ... but I wonder if Apple had some AMD products, whether Intel would have got a thunderbolt and USB-3 Xeon multi-processor solution into the market 18 months ago.

Fact is though, that Thunderbolt and USB-3 aren't that necessary for a Mac Pro. Its got lots of internal expansion, and its cheaper to put in capacity in the machine, than outside of it. IMO the lack of Thunderbolt in Mac Pros has hurt only one area of business - the monitor division. I wonder too, how many new Mac Pro buyers, have bought alternate displays, rather than an Apple display. I also suspect that USB-3 isn't a big deal for a desktop. I notice that Dell, who sell many reasonably priced monitors of reasonable quality, do not yet have USB-3 in them. USB-3 cannot be that important for desktops then, otherwise Dell would have had it in their monitors last year.

 

[thekev]

And that's the point. Apple need some exclusive hero products. They have them for the home market, but they need them for business. Like a games console, the exclusives are a key to buying.

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to all of this. My previous typing started to sound somewhat nitpicky so I deleted it. It's too easy to focus on familiar points at times. Overall Apple doesn't give a lot of attention to its smaller markets. Many of them languish. You could ask how many people actually buy a Mac Pro RAID card, yet it doesn't excuse their issues. It's a cto option, and it's a waste of money for something that bad. A lot of other workstations have native SAS support (one of its selling point features, again smaller market) anyway. When I think of Apple buying up smaller markets that aren't huge points of growth, I see it as the end of a product. They're just not set up well to develop things for smaller markets. I am not saying they are shorthanded on resources. They just haven't shown much of a desire in these areas where stability is greatly valued. Much of the time with professional products, the innovation comes from others who build plugins and further development to augment the functionality of a powerful existing platform.

I would still suggest that the problem with companies like Adobe is that much like Apple at times, they focus on things that look pretty from a marketing standpoint. Photoshop has long been the standard, yet Painter and Manga Studio have implemented superior brush engines. They get complacent on the fundamental tools in favor of marketing items as those push upgrades. When people still aren't upgrading at their desired rate, they change the licensing and upgrade terms.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Firstly, I appreciate you not going in hard!!!

As far as SAS goes ... I had a look. I used it at Uni, many eons ago. And only a bit ... nice to know they are still around! Their pages listed all the OS's SAS runs on ... but the system itself seemed based on Vista! They seem to have a huge number of separate programs. To port all would be financially insane I guess.

I don't know how big that market is, but such a program might be one that would run just as well on a Unix platform, or something else. SAS I guess went for the Microsoft platform and having one platform would be more economic for them. If SAS cost twice as much on Mac OS, maybe people would not be happy to pay that extra amount.

... When I think of Apple buying up smaller markets that aren't huge points of growth, I see it as the end of a product. They're just not set up well to develop things for smaller markets. I am not saying they are shorthanded on resources. They just haven't shown much of a desire in these areas where stability is greatly valued. Much of the time with professional products, the innovation comes from others who build plugins and further development to augment the functionality of a powerful existing platform.

While I agree, there is still a big place for OS X in the arts arena. But if nothing is exclusive, it opens the door to Apple's competition.

Apple needs its own, exclusive software, because that drives hardware purchases. The problem is, that a company not controlled by Apple, will port that software to Windows.

There are many examples of that happening. In architecture, Archicad came I think from the Lisa. By 1992 it was a full blown maturing 3D architecture package. And in 1993, it went PC.

So, how can Apple survive in the desktop? With notebooks, its by innovation. That has worked, with Apple taking risks. For instance, for its alloy notebooks, it cornered the best alloy in the world (from Australia) before introducing its new alloy technology. Such bravery and dedication to the best has not been possible with Windows manufacturers, who have to be risk averse. Their market tends to be cost driven. Hence Microsoft have introduced an innovative compact Pad style book, with an integrated super thin keyboard that acts as a cover when turned off. No one else would build that technology, so Microsoft said they had to.

Getting back to the desktop, the iMac is no longer unique. The business model for the Mac Pro though, is different to the iMac's. And Mac Pro's appear to need a long time to bring in new Mac Pro form factors - which is perhaps due to trying to keep the costs down. They are differentiated though - the quality is great, and the price for workstations is actually very good.

But without unique - hero products - I think the platform will find it more difficult to be profitable. Its a mature area anyway, so I guess there's little innovation left. There's not much between Windows, Mac or Linux for that matter these days. The threat to those, is perhaps outside of the workplace , IOS and other portable software devices.

The funny thing is that if Mac sold its own motherboard for $400, people could make macs like PCs. And Apple could make $100 a motherboard. I reckon if Apple offered a motherboard and a copy of OS X along with it, their market share would sky rocket. But I don't know if that would increase profits for Apple.

 

[thekev]

Firstly, I appreciate you not going in hard!!!

As far as SAS goes ... I had a look. I used it at Uni, many eons ago. And only a bit ... nice to know they are still around! Their pages listed all the OS's SAS runs on ... but the system itself seemed based on Vista! They seem to have a huge number of separate programs. To port all would be financially insane I guess.

I don't know how big that market is, but such a program might be one that would run just as well on a Unix platform, or something else. SAS I guess went for the Microsoft platform and having one platform would be more economic for them. If SAS cost twice as much on Mac OS, maybe people would not be happy to pay that extra amount.

SAS = serial attached scsi

I googled it to see what you might be referencing, and I imagine you read the wrong wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_attached_SCSI

SAS= a drive type. The mac pro supports these drives with the raid card, not the native controller, but the raid card is garbage.

While I agree, there is still a big place for OS X in the arts arena. But if nothing is exclusive, it opens the door to Apple's competition.

Apple needs its own, exclusive software, because that drives hardware purchases. The problem is, that a company not controlled by Apple, will port that software to Windows.

They'd be better off supporting small developers. This is where much of the innovation originates. Most of Apple's truly iconic improvements over the past decade came from acquisitions and licensing (multitouch, siri, itunes, ipod, soc design, etc.)

Getting back to the desktop, the iMac is no longer unique. The business model for the Mac Pro though, is different to the iMac's. And Mac Pro's appear to need a long time to bring in new Mac Pro form factors - which is perhaps due to trying to keep the costs down. They are differentiated though - the quality is great, and the price for workstations is actually very good.

Much of the imac's original market moved on to the mobile devices. Note that the OP was debating imac vs. mac pro. They've made the mac pro as unattractive as they can, so questions like this come up.

But without unique - hero products - I think the platform will find it more difficult to be profitable. Its a mature area anyway, so I guess there's little innovation left. There's not much between Windows, Mac or Linux for that matter these days. The threat to those, is perhaps outside of the workplace , IOS and other portable software devices.

The funny thing is that if Mac sold its own motherboard for $400, people could make macs like PCs. And Apple could make $100 a motherboard. I reckon if Apple offered a motherboard and a copy of OS X along with it, their market share would sky rocket. But I don't know if that would increase profits for Apple.

Hero products do bring stability. Their app store and itunes help in that regard, but you're right in that people could simply move on as they did from other mass market brands (and Apple is mass market).

In terms of the do it yourself market, that is most likely a shrinking group of people, at least if measured by percentage. Making a build it yourself kit makes very little sense. The closest you'd see would be certification. Even that is really pushing it. I just don't see them heading this direction.


I just looked at how far off topic this is going. I'm going to excuse myself from the conversation so we don't get the thread locked for going way off topic (not trying to get the last word, but if I continue responding it'll go further off topic and end up locked if they still care about the mac pro section).

 

[Pval]

I bought a 2.8 MP a month ago and still have an iMac 2.8 i7 (680), according to most benchmarks they were performed more or less the same, but in daily use the MP felt faster.
I've since upgraded to SSD (PCIe controller) and upgraded ram and cpu to a hex core, that's put the MP ahead of any iMac you can buy today. Hoping ML will bring support for 'modern' GPUs

 

[Melbourne Park]

I bought a 2.8 MP a month ago and still have an iMac 2.8 i7 (680), according to most benchmarks they were performed more or less the same, but in daily use the MP felt faster.
I've since upgraded to SSD (PCIe controller) and upgraded ram and cpu to a hex core, that's put the MP ahead of any iMac you can buy today. Hoping ML will bring support for 'modern' GPUs

yep, the 2009 single CPU Mac Pros are very easy to CPU upgrade, with brilliant results.

Same too with the 2010 duels as well. I think over time, more apps will use the multi-threads better, so lots of cores will become more efficient. And I expect the Xeon processors that today cost a lot, will get cheaper in a year or two. And that's the great thing about these Nehalem Mac Pros - the lower models can be upgraded to a great deal more performance, and most likely very affordably in the future.