You should educate yourself on this subject before posting nonsense...
No pro apps in Java or .net...ahahahahahahh...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the new Mac Pro a failure?
- Thread starter ZombiePhysicist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
No pro apps in Java or .net...ahahahahahahh...
the way you worded that changes the subject* just enough to make your statement correct but, at the same time, it doesn't negate the original subject of .NET in applications.
right, no pro apps are written in .NET..
but
there are plenty of pro applications which have integrated .NET..
rhino does for sure.. then the first three professional packages i goggled also use it.. i assume many more or i'm just lucky.
autocad __ excel __ maya
so back to the original reason i mention .NET in the first place-- all of the features in those apps which are using .net are now available in the mac versions as well thanks to microsoft making it open source now.
----
* edit - well, you've quoted someone other than myself but i've been involved in this subtopic also.
------
edit2.. now that i re-read what you said, i'm pretty sure i've misunderstood your point entirely
Last edited:
It's not a pun, it's a malapropism.
And nice that you think that it's funny. For some of us, it just makes your fractured English even harder to understand.
Last edited:
ha.. really? it's definitely a pun and has been used intentionally.. for proof of it's effectiveness as a pun, look no further than the first time you quoted me about it.
I replied to someone who said there were no "pro" application written in .net or java...the way you worded that changes the subject* just enough to make your statement correct but, at the same time, it doesn't negate the original subject of .NET in applications.
right, no pro apps are written in .NET..
but
there are plenty of pro applications which have integrated .NET..
rhino does for sure.. then the first three professional packages i goggled also use it.. i assume many more or i'm just lucky.
autocad __ excel __ maya
so back to the original reason i mention .NET in the first place-- all of the features in those apps which are using .net are now available in the mac versions as well thanks to microsoft making it open source now.
----
* edit - well, you've quoted someone other than myself but i've been involved in this subtopic also.
------
edit2.. now that i re-read what you said, i'm pretty sure i've misunderstood your point entirely
The banking, engineering and science field use a whole bunch of "pro" applications developed in .net or java.
Pro doesn't mean "media creation" only.
no humor bone in you either tux?
just a different way of saying -
yeah, nmp is a niche product.. so is cmp
1st lesson of internet forum... Sarcasm and humor doesn't carry all that well on a forum, especially an international one. And as it has been pointed out to you many, many time already, your writting style doesn't help at all in conveying what you really want to say. You should really work on that or expect more missunderstanding in the future.
For me a mac has been a tool, where a P.C. was device dependent on my technical skills. Yes, I could always tweak a P.C to outperform the mac in technical terms, but it did not replace the mac as a tool.
The nMP is a far better tool. At some point there is a shift in a technical revolution where software is the restricting performance issue, not hardware. The issue is it is far harder to write and control efficient code than to boost the performance of code with hardware. There is a migration from programing language such as C to microcode to hardware. That is where real performance is generated, not faster processors.
The question is has the P.C industry marked matured enough to start producing quality low level software and hardware that the next level of performance provides. That requires strict control of the hardware, not the plug and play world we have been in.
As a tool, my nMP system has about 20 5tb drives. As a tool the modularity of the nMP outperforms the old box designs. If one of my raid5 clusters fails, I should be able to just plug in a new drive and recover. My operating system is backed up by time machine, my video data is backed up by a special program to a USB raid5 drive.
The video performance over thunderbolt 2 is about 60 frames a second if I remember my testing correctly.
It would be impossible to build my system inside a box system. Failures would be a disasters. I am not the most structure computer person and that is a disaster on a box system. While a lot of people, including myself have the technical skills to avoid the disaster on a box computer, it is far easier to unplug all your external disks to format a new raid drive. You can unplug your external data to reinstall the operating system. As a took the nMP design is far better than the box design.
It is leading edge of a technology change, from a box to showcase your technical skills to more of a tool. The old box design and technical skills will lead for a while, but the nMP design will win in the end. It is just a better tool.
In the future, the nMP might end up as a card you plug into the monitor of your choice. Maybe it will be a part of your phone with your data on the cloud or on a chip. When you look at the digital media requirement of the tool of the future, The box design will not cut it.
The upgradability of the box is more a sales tool than reality. After a couple of years when I priced that new hot video card, it was usually more cost effective to upgrade the complete machine. The old box machines are are more useful then the pile of obsolete video cards and cpu's. I have no issues finding uses for my old raid clusters, they just move from performance to back storage.
I do think the nMp is geared for the consumer, not the past technical world. The skills needed for an immature technology are never the same skill to use a mature tool, The skills for a new technology are always far different than the skill from the technology it is replacing. It is just hard for people to move from typewriter repair man to computer expert. For a short while typewriter repairmen were in more demand that computer experts. My P.C technical skills were worth while 35 years ago, but today P.C skills are where typewriter repairmen were 35 years go.
The nMP is one heck of a tool, the box P.C is a tool of the past, and the bleeding edge technology is probably in storage and moving applications from code to hardware.
The nMP is a far better tool. At some point there is a shift in a technical revolution where software is the restricting performance issue, not hardware. The issue is it is far harder to write and control efficient code than to boost the performance of code with hardware. There is a migration from programing language such as C to microcode to hardware. That is where real performance is generated, not faster processors.
The question is has the P.C industry marked matured enough to start producing quality low level software and hardware that the next level of performance provides. That requires strict control of the hardware, not the plug and play world we have been in.
As a tool, my nMP system has about 20 5tb drives. As a tool the modularity of the nMP outperforms the old box designs. If one of my raid5 clusters fails, I should be able to just plug in a new drive and recover. My operating system is backed up by time machine, my video data is backed up by a special program to a USB raid5 drive.
The video performance over thunderbolt 2 is about 60 frames a second if I remember my testing correctly.
It would be impossible to build my system inside a box system. Failures would be a disasters. I am not the most structure computer person and that is a disaster on a box system. While a lot of people, including myself have the technical skills to avoid the disaster on a box computer, it is far easier to unplug all your external disks to format a new raid drive. You can unplug your external data to reinstall the operating system. As a took the nMP design is far better than the box design.
It is leading edge of a technology change, from a box to showcase your technical skills to more of a tool. The old box design and technical skills will lead for a while, but the nMP design will win in the end. It is just a better tool.
In the future, the nMP might end up as a card you plug into the monitor of your choice. Maybe it will be a part of your phone with your data on the cloud or on a chip. When you look at the digital media requirement of the tool of the future, The box design will not cut it.
The upgradability of the box is more a sales tool than reality. After a couple of years when I priced that new hot video card, it was usually more cost effective to upgrade the complete machine. The old box machines are are more useful then the pile of obsolete video cards and cpu's. I have no issues finding uses for my old raid clusters, they just move from performance to back storage.
I do think the nMp is geared for the consumer, not the past technical world. The skills needed for an immature technology are never the same skill to use a mature tool, The skills for a new technology are always far different than the skill from the technology it is replacing. It is just hard for people to move from typewriter repair man to computer expert. For a short while typewriter repairmen were in more demand that computer experts. My P.C technical skills were worth while 35 years ago, but today P.C skills are where typewriter repairmen were 35 years go.
The nMP is one heck of a tool, the box P.C is a tool of the past, and the bleeding edge technology is probably in storage and moving applications from code to hardware.
Oh boy.... First both the iMac and nMP are "P.C." (Personal computer).
They aren't made that different beside the form factor. They use the same component that many other do, just with proprietary connectors.
You can use 20 external drives with a cMP or "box" PC too. They'll just be hooked up differently than the nMP.
Your comment about the videocard upgrade is total nonsense. Buying a whole new computer instead of upgrading the GPU hasn't made sense since the advent of the iSerie Intel CPU. Even a first generation i5 CPU is quite enough to feed the data to any GPU available today. The CPU isn't the bottleneck. A new TitanX cost about $1k. You won't get a new computer with a TitanX for $1k and unless you like to replace hardware for nothing, buying a new computer to replace a GPU just doesn't make any sense today.
And it's also a bit ironic that a company that tries to present itself as socially concious as Apple is pumping out devices that are locked down and non user servicable. In this day and age acopany putting out device whose life are purposedly cut short by a total lack of upgrade posibility should be reprimanded for it.
This isn't innovation...
They aren't made that different beside the form factor. They use the same component that many other do, just with proprietary connectors.
You can use 20 external drives with a cMP or "box" PC too. They'll just be hooked up differently than the nMP.
Your comment about the videocard upgrade is total nonsense. Buying a whole new computer instead of upgrading the GPU hasn't made sense since the advent of the iSerie Intel CPU. Even a first generation i5 CPU is quite enough to feed the data to any GPU available today. The CPU isn't the bottleneck. A new TitanX cost about $1k. You won't get a new computer with a TitanX for $1k and unless you like to replace hardware for nothing, buying a new computer to replace a GPU just doesn't make any sense today.
And it's also a bit ironic that a company that tries to present itself as socially concious as Apple is pumping out devices that are locked down and non user servicable. In this day and age acopany putting out device whose life are purposedly cut short by a total lack of upgrade posibility should be reprimanded for it.
This isn't innovation...
That was a whole lot of writing to say you don't need the capabilities the cMP form factor offered. Last I checked you do not speak for everyone.
I understand what you're trying to say, but your entire argument in favor of the nMP versus "the box" doesn't work because the Mac Pro is still using traditional desktop parts. There is nothing the Mac Pro offers hardware wise or I/O wise that a traditional workstation can't. Its primary advantages are its size and silence, and even then there are PC solutions that compete in that regard (though likely not as well).
You go on hypothesize a future unit that's just a card that gets inserted in a monitor, and that's all you'll need. But how is that relevant to the current Mac Pro design? Just because it's different? If anything, the Mac Pro is much closer to the traditional tower workstation than your hypothetical. Ultimately the Mac Pro is the same old computer using the same parts, only in a new shape and size.
And for what it's worth, I like the new Mac Pro design. I hate that I still feel the need to disclaim that, but don't want to get lumped in with the perceived "haters" group.
As do I. I don't want anyone to reach the conclusion I dislike the nMP. I just wish Apple would have continued to offer a cMP form factor.
I agree, actually only DIY and very small organization consider upgrades a part of the hardware's life cycle, because it cost more to hire a technician to upgrade system plus the parts than the improvements worth, has more sense to buy optimal system and at some point to scroll those systems to less demanding users and purchase new ones with current optimal top specs.
For an medium workgroups is lower the TCO of owning a new Mac Pro and upgrading with new ones than just upgrade components, for an organization that needs to hire a technician for these duties is less expensive just to inherit the older machines to less demanding users and purchase new one for those requiring, the numbers are clear, also consider sometimes a Mac Pro user earn or produce on an hour more than the savings accounted upgrading parts (which implies down time, hire a technician etc, being very optimistic in the US amlb easy upgrade (not complicated as usual) cost besides the parts about 150-300$ in labor plus about the same on production loss due unable time, add to this the power savings on a year using the nMP than the oMP.
Apple did this math, a computer system cost much more than the hardware and software inside, cost productivity, maintenance (tech support) and power, the nMP sacrifice the "upgradability convenience" in favor to a much lower TCO.
Speak for yourself. It's not uncommon for businesses, of all sizes, to upgrade components.
I find it rare, just like in Mago case. The only time they normally replace a part is for repair or replacement of aging inventory with all new machines.
You tend to find upgrades in small businesses or an independent one person business.
And, as usual, the argument omits the biggest advantage of an expandable system is that there can be many, many BTO options so that the initial configuration can be "expanded" so that it has some headroom to make it through its three year lifespan without needing to be opened.
"Expandability before purchase" can be quite important, even if you never "expand after purchase".
I just expanded my nMP - again. Added another external bay. One single cable and I didn't even have to plug it into the nMP. I was a Huge fan of the Jawa Sandcrawler MP. But I gave up when all the updates stuck with the 4 internal drives. Now had they upped it to 5, Wow! I would have been all over it.
For most companies with more employees than you can count on your fingers and toes squared, "replacement of aging inventory" is an ongoing, gradual process.
In my company, personal systems are bought with three year warranties (default for Dell/HP/Lenovo - AppleCare for fruit-flavored systems). When the warranty expires, a system is replaced within the next quarter.
Sudden unplanned refreshes of large numbers of machines only happens when a change to new software means that large numbers of systems can't run the new software. ("Oh, that new data mining application uses CUDA - ditch all of the new Apples.")
And you also find upgrades in very large companies - as long as you look outside the marketing, HR and finance groups.
I work for a very large software company, and my division is upgrading all of the engineers to at least dual 4K screens (Dell P2715Q). We're buying Nvidia Maxwell cards by the bulk carton to get at least dual-DP graphics on the systems. (Of course, if a system is more than about 2 1/2 years old or is lower end - we upgrade the system to one with a capable Nvidia card.)
But, of course, we have no Apple MP systems.
Last edited:
You have no clue about what company do...
We don't upgrade the secretary's cheap desktop but we sure upgrade and switch component on a machine that cost $3k+. This is especially true for GPUs, something you can't do with the nMP.
You have NO clue the departments I've worked handles its IT infrastructure. So far we talked about two of your own companies out of how many thousands out there? Some exceptions to the rule exist. But do the majority of these companies really "Upgrade" parts in their machines besides the few heavy, number crunching computers they might have?
Last edited:
- Status