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.
Mac Pro is obsolete
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
)Really, the Mac Pro will be using more advanced, higher-bandwidth RAM that's been abandoned simply for price reasons. Don't think it's obsolete, it's like saying EFI is obsolete because no PC manufactueres are using it. Anyway, I'll probably be buying another comp in 2009.
Stupid headline. The article linked doesn't say that at all.
The Mac Pro is one of the most powerful machines you can buy right now, it won't be obsolete for years. You might as well say EVERY high end machine right now is obsolete.
What a load of crap.
The Mac Pro is one of the most powerful machines you can buy right now, it won't be obsolete for years. You might as well say EVERY high end machine right now is obsolete.
What a load of crap.
Doesn't bother me. Then again, the PC I've been using for the last four years has RAMBUS memory. Registered and ECC memory to boot.
90% of computer equipment is "obsolete" within a year.
A couple of years ago CPUs were obsolete every 6 months.
It's the nature of the electronics world. If you wait a year for the new DIMMs, newer faster DIMMs will be on the horizon after those. There's always something new comming out soon so there's usually no reason to wait. There are some milestones worth waiting for though like switching to sata, PCI-E or core 2s. But that's every few years =P
A couple of years ago CPUs were obsolete every 6 months.
It's the nature of the electronics world. If you wait a year for the new DIMMs, newer faster DIMMs will be on the horizon after those. There's always something new comming out soon so there's usually no reason to wait. There are some milestones worth waiting for though like switching to sata, PCI-E or core 2s. But that's every few years =P
The question of obsolescence is obviously moot, but this kind of info should raise red flags about Apple's decision to use the server board and FB-DIMMs (high heat, high latency - when Apple's bread and butter are memory-intensive apps) in its sole real desktop.
Actually I think Apples decision was to use Woodcrest so that they could have a 2 socket / 4 core system to replace the G5 Quad. Woodcrest means Intel 5000 chipset and that means FB-DIMM.milozauckerman said:
My ZX Spectrum (first computer) is obsolete.
My Atari ST is obsolete.
My first PC, a 40MHz 386 is obsolete.
The P90 that replaced it is obsolete.
My 2x466MHz Celeron (yes - I know - they are supposed to only work in sing socket systems) is probably close to being obsolete and I have retired it.
The 2x2GHz Xeon sytem I used for 4 years is still fine (I still use it once or twice a month - it uses Rambus memory by the way).
The G4 Mac mini I've been using for the last 18 months is still a perfectly respectable system (even though the G4 was "obsolete" when I bought it).
The Mac Pro I now have is not obsolete by any definition of the term - and will still be a fine system three or four years down the line.
Truth is that the pace of software development has failed to keep up with hardware. Very few applications are able to really make use of the power of even "obsolete" systems. Just look how long the move to 64 bit (of even 32 bit for that matter) takes.
It is usually the operating system and software, not the hardware itself, that makes any individual computer obsolete.
My Atari ST is obsolete.
My first PC, a 40MHz 386 is obsolete.
The P90 that replaced it is obsolete.
My 2x466MHz Celeron (yes - I know - they are supposed to only work in sing socket systems) is probably close to being obsolete and I have retired it.
The 2x2GHz Xeon sytem I used for 4 years is still fine (I still use it once or twice a month - it uses Rambus memory by the way).
The G4 Mac mini I've been using for the last 18 months is still a perfectly respectable system (even though the G4 was "obsolete" when I bought it).
The Mac Pro I now have is not obsolete by any definition of the term - and will still be a fine system three or four years down the line.
Truth is that the pace of software development has failed to keep up with hardware. Very few applications are able to really make use of the power of even "obsolete" systems. Just look how long the move to 64 bit (of even 32 bit for that matter) takes.
It is usually the operating system and software, not the hardware itself, that makes any individual computer obsolete.
milozauckerman said:
That's got to be the dumbest thing said in this thread short of the original poster.
what should they have done, not released a product? There is no other option for a dual socket system out there for the next 18 months.
bob5820 said:
Correct.
Apple had no realistic opton but to go with what was available. Just like they used the Core Duo when they really wanted to use the Core 2 Duo (64 bit for Leopard), but that would have ment waiting another 8 months before replacing the G4 in their laptop range.
The "perfect" solution for the Mac Pro would have been to wait until intel intigrate the memory controler into the CPU itself (as AMD does). But intel currently don't intend to do that until the Core 4 Duo (or whatever they will call the architecture that replaces the replacment for the Core 2 Duo) - 4 years from now (if intel stick to their roadmap).
Could Apple have kept offering the Power Mac for another 4 years?
bousozoku said:
Yes. It is very different.
RDRAM was a good solution to the problems that Intel envisaged with faster systems about a year or so down the line. Problems was all the memory manufacturers did not want to pay royalties to RanBus, and there were some alternatives - if you did not mind only having 2 memory slots (a big change from the days were even low-end systems often had 4 or even 8).
This time FB-DIMMs are an open standard and they are a good solution to a problem that is here right now (how to get lots of memory into servers and worksations without requiring horribly expensive and complicated motherboard designs).
In another 24 months there may be other alternatives (probably be the first memory to require fans mounted on the memory modules). A new memory type comes along ever two or three years. There is always something new on the horizon.
Right now FB-Dimms are the answer
generik said:
And almost none of the software people run will use them effectivly (he says as he surfs the net, downloads sn InDesign project, and encodes some video - and still can't get the fans on this Mac Pro to speed up)...
Um, yeah, how does that contradict what I said? Note the 'sole desktop' part - FB-DIMMs and a quad-core system are fantastic if you need them, but this is Apple's sole true desktop and many of its users have greater use for a low-latency dual-core option. Just like the G5 before it, and just like the G4s when the line was split between dual processors and single.
Yes, because there exist no desktop options on Earth aside from a server-class motherboard and $250/gig FB-DIMMs.
Moron.
As I read it your statement was about Apple's decision to use FB-DIMM, my counterpoint was that the RAM was dictated by the choice of CPU/chipset. Your argument that this is Apple's 'sole true desktop' is the problem. Apple is marketing the Mac Pro as a worksation. If you argued that Apple has no 'sole true desktop' then I'd agree. Until they decide to build this mythical xMac they have no true desktop, at least by PC gameing standards. I agree that Apple may be missing part of the market here but I don't see how that makes designing a workstation as a workstation a bad decision.milozauckerman said:
It is about Apple's decision to use Xeons (requiring FB-DIMMs) in its desktop arena. Clearly there are issues (as indicated by Intel's decision) with latency and heat (and cost) - issues that hit hardest at Apple's core desktop demographic, and thanks to the marketing decision (gotta have a quad!), Apple users who don't want a laptop-spec iMac are stuck with these issues.
I don't see what the big deal is. This isn't exactly new news or anything.
This was one thing I was taking into consideration prior to ordering my Mac Pro a month ago.
There is always going to be something bigger and better. Not to mention that Intel has no other options other then FB-DIMMS for another year and a half. The way they have been discounting their CPUs to try and get some of the marketshare back from AMD is certainly going to put a lot of Woodcrest chips out there.
This is actually great news! Computers should be replaced every 18-24 months (depending on your wallet/needs), so when it comes time to update my Mac Pro the next version of Intel's chip/northbridge will be out.
Bring it on!
This was one thing I was taking into consideration prior to ordering my Mac Pro a month ago.
There is always going to be something bigger and better. Not to mention that Intel has no other options other then FB-DIMMS for another year and a half. The way they have been discounting their CPUs to try and get some of the marketshare back from AMD is certainly going to put a lot of Woodcrest chips out there.
This is actually great news! Computers should be replaced every 18-24 months (depending on your wallet/needs), so when it comes time to update my Mac Pro the next version of Intel's chip/northbridge will be out.
Bring it on!
ammon said:
As someone who has used the same system for close to six years (modded and upgraded a bit, but still), I disagree. I usually only buy when what I'm using won't hack what I need (the Swatooth replaced a performa 6200 in 2000). I see about three more years of life in my Sawtooth at least, then several more years as a fileserver.