Mac Pro Arrived! Pics Included

[chaosbunny]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The current marketing strategy for Macs has been that way for years - ever since Steve returned - remember the "product matrix" they worked so hard to fill out?

I mean seriously, we're only talkin a few hundred dollars difference between an upper end iMac and a bas Mac Pro...what exactly are you looking to save?

Sorry, couldn't resist too!

Honestly, I do not understand all the people who are against some kind of mid range headless mac.

Personally I'd buy a machine like that with a Conroe and an upgradeable graphics card for around 1500 € in a heartbeat. See, I have this pretty Eizo monitor in my sig standing around which beats every apple display to dust in terms of color calibration and accuracy.

I want to keep my powerbook as laptop and for a few things I rarely need classic support. So macbook pro is no option. I do not want/need/have the space on my desk for another monitor, so imac is no option. The mini doesn't have enough power for my needs (Adobe CS (mostly Illustrator), light Cinema 4D and occasional gaming), while the macpro is overkill & sadly is too expensive.

So while I'd buy a mac midi or whatever it would be called the day it comes out, like probably many of the people here, apple won't see another cent from me until I can't do my work on the powerbook, which will be approximately in 1-2 years.

I agree that the "mac midi" most likely will not happen, but I think apple is losing switchers and in the long run money & market share without it.

 

[gnasher729]

arstechnica has a review up of the Mac Pro.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macpro.ars/1

The reviewer didn't seem as enthused as some of us are. I of course still am and can't wait for my delivery date

There are some weird things in these tests.

Number one, everyone's special favorite, the XBench benchmark. MacOS X refuses to update the screen for user interface items faster than the screen refresh rate (which is quite sensible because the user can't see those changes anyway), so having a faster CPU, and four of them at that, doesn't make the slightest difference.

Number two, to check speed in Rosetta, they opened a giant Word document and measured how long it takes to scroll through it using the arrow key. Can I give you a hint how to make this faster? Go to System Preferences, Mouse & Keyboard, click on Keyboard, then increase the key repeat rate to the max. To make it slower, change key repeat rate to the minimum. So this test is completely worthless.

Number three, they measure encoding speed. Encoding MP3 audio and MPEG-4 video. Not much gain compared to the G5s. What they don't get is that with these encoders, the speed is limited by the speed of the CD or DVD drive! Dual G5 can easily encode MPEG-4 at speeds close to the DVD speed. Quad Xeon could handle substantially faster speed, but you can't encode faster than the DVD drive runs! What would make much more sense is to check what the CPU usage is. Or to check H.264 encoding, which just might be CPU limited (although it will be close).

 

[apple64]

Is there any problem to install my old SATA 1 250GB HD ?

 

[devmage]

Hi.

Maybe someone here knows the answer to this.

When I get my MacPro in the mail - hopefully in a week or two - and if I use Migration Assistant (yes, I have gotten lazy in these last few years) and IF I have FCP Studio UB installed on my current G5, will it work natively on the MacPro or did the installer for FCP only install the PowerPC version on the G5?

Sorry for my ignorance, but I need your wisdom.

Thanks in advance.

It depends on how old your FCP is if it is Universal binary or not. I think only the HD version is. I know I need to upgrade the FCE I got with my G5 to the FCE HD so I can get the universal version. Plus it has neat features

 

[devmage]

Is there any problem to install my old SATA 1 250GB HD ?

SATA2 controllers are backwards compatable so you'll have no problem using the drive on the new controler. For that matter my G5 has SATA2 drives in them they go the other direction too

 

[CyberDoberman]

SATA2 controllers are backwards compatable so you'll have no problem using the drive on the new controler. For that matter my G5 has SATA2 drives in them they go the other direction too

Wanna hear something funny? Apple includes Western Digital 250GB drives...

But my old PC 250GB Maxtor DiamondPlus 9 drives benched significantly FASTER than the stock Apple drives.

Wonder why? Hmmm...

Guess it doesn't matter...

I have 4 360GB Seagate 7200.10 Perpendicular drives on the way... so it's all moot... but still...

 

[weldon]

I have 4 360GB Seagate 7200.10 Perpendicular drives on the way...

Barefeats had problems with using the 750GB drives from this series. It may just be the drive size but I would be cautious with the new drives in case there is a problem with compatibility in the new 7200.10 series.

 

[damado]

How does the noise on the 7200.10s compare to the 7200.9s?

I'm trying to find the best speed to noise ratio.

The WDs look nice too, but their description doesn't mention NCQ =/

 

[Multimedia]

$864.26 Dual Core 2GHz G5 • Cost Per Core Is Future Pricing Strategy

Well.. from your sig..
You already have Quad. Why do you need 2 Ghz Dual Core G5 as stopgap ? I'd say more of convenience. I don't see Quad+ Dual G5 = Clovertown whatever.
just curious.
And I totally disagree with "last forever" claim though.
People don't buy Quad G5 just to surf the internet, check email, and chat and such.
Computer doesn't last forever. Perhaps their physical existance, but not their productivity.
I believe that top of the line products meant for top of the line professionals have the effective life span of 3~4 years at most .

Problem is with only 4 cores, even running two processes simultaneously compromises the amount of two each will use. If I leave one alone on each Mac, they both run up to or above (on the Quad) two cores. So having the cheap Dual Core 2GHz G5 I found for $864.26 at Fry's Saturday morning, I can run two processes simultaneously faster. Since what I'm doing is not about RAM I dont' even have to move any ram over from the Quad to the Dual Core. GB Ethernet is the saving grace here. All the Quad drives act like local on the Dual.

Since I paid $700 per core for the Quad and I paid $432.13 per core for the 2GHz Dual Core - $849.50 per core on the Apple refurb page - I'm thinking that unless you compute how much each core is costing you, you will pay too much. You can see by he above numbers that buying less than a Quad is not cost effective (unless you find a deal were you pay only $400-$500 per core), if you can figure out how to use all the cores most of the time - IE if you really do need that much power. Since this is the Pro thread, I figure most of us here have need for as much power as Apple can throw at us.

Next we need benchmarks between all three Mac Pros so we can see how much difference there is among different applications. There may be a place for the 2GHz Mac Pro if the applications you use are more about hard drive speed than processor speed.

 

[Multimedia]

You Forgot The Heaphone, FW 400 Pair & Single FW 800 Ports On Front

View attachment 55021

Sorry, couldn't resist too!

Honestly, I do not understand all the people who are against some kind of mid range headless mac.

Personally I'd buy a machine like that with a Conroe and an upgradeable graphics card for around 1500 € in a heartbeat. See, I have this pretty Eizo monitor in my sig standing around which beats every apple display to dust in terms of color calibration and accuracy.

I want to keep my powerbook as laptop and for a few things I rarely need classic support. So macbook pro is no option. I do not want/need/have the space on my desk for another monitor, so imac is no option. The mini doesn't have enough power for my needs (Adobe CS (mostly Illustrator), light Cinema 4D and occasional gaming), while the macpro is overkill & sadly is too expensive.

So while I'd buy a mac midi or whatever it would be called the day it comes out, like probably many of the people here, apple won't see another cent from me until I can't do my work on the powerbook, which will be approximately in 1-2 years.

I agree that the "mac midi" most likely will not happen, but I think apple is losing switchers and in the long run money & market share without it.

I completely agree with you. Perfect pace for Core 2 Duo Conroe and its successor Kentsfield. But You Forgot The Heaphone, FW 400 Pair & Single FW 800 Ports On Front. Please revise and repost. And would you post a larger dimensions (1280 x 1024) version of the image using ImageReady (save for web inside Photoshop) to keep the file size down please? What you have posted is far too small in dimensions. But I love your work. Keep it up and thanks.

 

[Multimedia]

Any Old SATA Drive Will Easily Go Inside Mac Pro In Minutes

Is there any problem to install my old SATA 1 250GB HD ?

No probelm. But you will need to install the intel version of OS X 10.4.7 on it before it can be a boot drive.

 

[chaosbunny]

Thanks for the flowers, but the picture I posted is not my cube and no mock up I created. I found it at cubeowner.com - there are a couple of very pretty cube case mods, and I could imagine a "mac midi" to look like some of them.

Just wanted to demonstrate that such a machine could be a beautiful addition to the apple lineup.

 

[Multimedia]

Final Cut Pro 4 & 4.5 HD Goes To Final Cut Studio UB For $199 • FCE to FCE HD $99

When I get my MacPro in the mail - hopefully in a week or two - and if I use Migration Assistant (yes, I have gotten lazy in these last few years) and IF I have FCP Studio UB installed on my current G5, will it work natively on the MacPro or did the installer for FCP only install the PowerPC version on the G5?

The UB installer put one version of each of the FCS Suite that will run on both versions of Macs. However, your license only allows you to run it on one Mac at a time - IE on your MacBook Pro in the field and one desktop at home or work. In any event, I think it would be best to install FCP with your DVD installers on the new Mac rather than relying on the Migration Assistant.

It depends on how old your FCP is if it is Universal binary or not. I think only the HD version is. I know I need to upgrade the FCE I got with my G5 to the FCE HD so I can get the universal version. Plus it has neat features

He already identified it as Final Cut Studio UB. No the 4 & 4.5 HD versions of Final Cut Pro are not UB. But you can use your original Final Cut Pro 4 or 4.5 HD version's install DVD to get the full Final Cut Studio for only $199 until December 20, 2006.

Final Cut Express is a competely different story. No upgrade path to FCS - only to Final Cut Express HD (UB) 3.5 for $99 from any previous verison 1, 2 or 3 of Final Cut Express.

If anyone wants to go that way from scratch I have a few new copies of Final Cut Express 1 for sale for $99. Final Cut Express HD 3.5 from scratch is $299 so you can save $101 buying an older PPC version of Final Cut Express for $99 and combining that with the $99 Upgrade for a total of $198. If interested private message me.

 

[paulvee]

Yeah, I suppose I'll just bite the bullet and reinstall. I don't trust most installers, either. I did the crossgrade to the UB when it was announced, just cause I like to jump on stuff like that before it times out.

In the middle of a feature-length project, as well, and should not change machines now, but that's the way it goes.

I'm letting Migration Assistant do everything else, though, and will sort out any problems if and when they arise.

 

[KingYaba]

I can't believe the attention this thread is getting. Look at the views compared to others in the Macintosh Computer section. It's quite funny.

 

[hadleydb]

I can't believe the attention this thread is getting. Look at the views compared to others in the Macintosh Computer section. It's quite funny.

Sorry I may have contributed to most those views.

 

[billabong]

Is it worth the $850 or so more to upgrade to 3.00 x 2 instead of 2.66 x 2... I'm looking for some advice.. .. Thanks! Also with the display how many of you use the 30" was it worth it? Is the 23" good enough, it's a tough call.... Also the graphics card, should I upgrade to the ATI? Everyone seems to be complaining about the base card....

 

[nsknike]

Ok, everyone was complaining about the "horrible" graphics card that comes stock, well I ordered a stock machine and then ordered the ATI card, so I can get the machince soon, which I got today. I just got done playing WOW on my 23" ACD. Lets just say I cancelled my order for the ATI card. I was able to play WOW with all setting on high at the native resolution for the monitor, no problems.

People are complaining about the stock card for no reason.

 

[Mav451]

Ok, everyone was complaining about the "horrible" graphics card that comes stock, well I ordered a stock machine and then ordered the ATI card, so I can get the machince soon, which I got today. I just got done playing WOW on my 23" ACD. Lets just say I cancelled my order for the ATI card. I was able to play WOW with all setting on high at the native resolution for the monitor, no problems.

People are complaining about the stock card for no reason.

Hehe, try playing more GPU-intensive games (FEAR or Oblivion) at native res, and tell us the results.

 

[nsknike]

Lol I don't play those games so I do see your point, but I thought WOW was supposed to be pretty intensive also.

 

[CyberDoberman]

Lol I don't play those games so I do see your point, but I thought WOW was supposed to be pretty intensive also.

Um, I don't know what YOU are smoking... but...

On my 30" Cinema Display, at 2560x1600 with only 1x AA and all goodies turned on, in World of Warcraft I'm seeing about 4 to 5 FPS.

So yeah, that stock card IS craptacular!

 

[gekko513]

Um, I don't know what YOU are smoking... but...

On my 30" Cinema Display, at 2560x1600 with only 1x AA and all goodies turned on, in World of Warcraft I'm seeing about 4 to 5 FPS.

So yeah, that stock card IS craptacular!

Expecting the base card to run full speed with all goodies at 2560x1600 is... I'm at a loss for words... wishful thinking to state it mildly.

 

[dante@sisna.com]

The thread that keeps on going, and going . . .

I can't believe the attention this thread is getting. Look at the views compared to others in the Macintosh Computer section. It's quite funny.

Yes, this is the thread that just keeps on going, and going, and going. . .

We've all waited so long for the Mac Pro. Crazy.

I feel like a Mac Addict.

No pun intended.

DJO

 

[Evangelion]

Nope. Up to 4.5 TB. There are TWO MORE SATA Cables in the Optical Bay Area waiting for TWO MORE SATA Drives to occupy the optical's space.

If you want to have an internal optical drive, then you can only add one additional HD in there.

 

[Evangelion]

4 for the HD bays, 2 where the Optical drives are. (as in, disconnect your Superdrive and plug in an HD

Opticals are not SATA, they are PATA.