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.
Returning my Mac Pro.. sadly
- Thread starter tobyg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Well, let start by making sure you don't make the same mistake in the future...tobyg said:
Including Boot Camp is not the same as supporting Windows. Until Apple starts supplying a copy of Windows with their hardware, they are under no obligation to support Windows. If you want better Mac support from Windows... call Microsoft, because that is who supplied you with Windows and not Apple.
So I strongly suggest that unless you are buying a Mac as a Mac, you should stick with PCs... that you know support Windows.
RacerX said:Well, let start by making sure you don't make the same mistake in the future...
Including Boot Camp is not the same as supporting Windows. Until Apple starts supplying a copy of Windows with their hardware, they are under no obligation to support Windows. If you want better Mac support from Windows... call Microsoft, because that is who supplied you with Windows and not Apple.
So I strongly suggest that unless you are buying a Mac as a Mac, you should stick with PCs... that you know support Windows.
Theres no need to be mean about anything here. I'm just informing people of my experience. That's what forums are for.
And please enlighten me the use of Bootcamp if its purpose is not to allow Windows to be installed on Macs.
From http://www.apple.com/bootcamp
Boot Camp lets you install Windows XP without moving your Mac data, though you will need to bring your own copy to the table, as Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.(1) Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.
Maybe you are mistaking my reference to 'supporting' windows. No, they don't sell Windows nor support the Windows operating system. The goal of Bootcamp, however, is to support the installation of Windows XP on your Mac.
I don't need 'support' for Windows... I need 'support' installing Windows on my Mac. Please understand the difference.
tobyg said:
I feel your pain. I returned mine last night. I've wanted a new Mac for a looooooooooooong time...
But I need Windows.
Apple really screwed the pooch on this one. I LOST $2000 by selling my gaming PeeCee for NOTHING on Ebay... with the understanding that their website said that I could dual boot.
Now, I've bought a Dell to replace it for Games.
I didn't want to... but it just wasn't a solution I was comfortable with.
AND NOW... I don't have the money to buy a Mac Pro when they fix these issues, if ever.
They lost a "market share" point with me... just yesterday.
tobyg said:
But you installed Windows just fine
Just because its not running fast enough for your liking, doesn't mean they didn't 'support' installing Windows on your MacPro - understand the difference.
kingjr3 said:But you installed Windows just fine
I'm not going to argue the semantics here. Yes it's installed. Is it usable? No, not with these hard drive speeds. If it's not going to be usable, what is the point of intalling it? And it's not just my liking, read around. Anyone who actually uses their computer will quickly realize the speeds are not acceptable.
It's a great Mac, it's just not a great "PC". Not now, at least. Understand what I'm saying. If you never intend on using your Mac Pro for a Windows machine, move along. This thread is a host of my experience trying to replace a PC with a Mac Pro to be able to live in the "PC" and Mac world with just one piece of hardware.
This thread is a prime example of why I can't respect these forums as much as I would like to.
The original poster has explained time and time again why HE needs to return his Mac Pro, yet by the look of many responses you would think he had badmouthed the Mac Pro harshly. People respond as if they are offended by the fact that he isn't satisfied with a certain performance issue and just can't get the fact that somebody wouldn't be satisfied.
I'd like to thank the OP for the issue that he brought up because I have been contemplating a Mac Pro and would like to be aware of as many issues (no matter how big or small they are) before I decide to get one. I'm sure apple will fix this hard drive speed issue (just like the OP said) and it will be fine, but if you need a system now, you need it now and I understand him returning it.
The original poster has explained time and time again why HE needs to return his Mac Pro, yet by the look of many responses you would think he had badmouthed the Mac Pro harshly. People respond as if they are offended by the fact that he isn't satisfied with a certain performance issue and just can't get the fact that somebody wouldn't be satisfied.
I'd like to thank the OP for the issue that he brought up because I have been contemplating a Mac Pro and would like to be aware of as many issues (no matter how big or small they are) before I decide to get one. I'm sure apple will fix this hard drive speed issue (just like the OP said) and it will be fine, but if you need a system now, you need it now and I understand him returning it.
tobyg said:
I sympathize with Toby. If you are interested in the Mac Pro because, at least according to specs, it should be the best cross-platform computer around for the price, you will be surprised at its lack of overall performance mainly limited to the sata issue.
It's hard for me knowing that my Mac Book 1.83 can do many things faster than my Mac Pro, simply because of the hard disk.
BUT, at the same time, I know Apple will increase the performance. But I also know they will most likely fix it the easiest way possible, enabling DMA in their PATA emulation.
Will the speed be good enough for me? Probably. If I were someone who planned on running a large database, audio or video editing on the Windows side, I might want to consider a different PC, instead, like the HP 8400.
BUT, at the same time, you could do all of those things with OS X compatible apps, and have the full performance you expect.
If I ran a popular gaming web blog right now, though, I would be quick to post an article about why the Mac Pro is currently a bad choice, even if they had access to an ATI 1900X. Gaming is really the only thing that Windows does better over OS X, these days, and this SATA issue affects them as well.
Not being mean... just factual. If it sounds mean, well, I'm not sure how else to put this stuff.tobyg said:
Would you rather I try and talk you out of sending it back? I'm trying to help you not make the same mistake twice.
How much nicer can I get?
I suggest changing the word "support" to "allows" in that last line, as in "Boot Camp allows the installation of Windows XP on your Mac."
What is Boot Camp for?
Easy... to keep people from toasting their Macs trying to get them to run Windows on them. In the months before Boot Camp, people were attempting to hack their Macs firmware to make them run Windows. This produced a ton of dead Macs that could neither run Windows or Mac OS X.
Boot Camp was put out to keep people from attempting a hack that, if not done exactly right, seriously damaged people's systems.
Parallels is the Apple recommended way of running Windows on your Intel-based Mac.
Quick question... If I buy a computer (a PC) that came with Windows pre-installed and I installed Linux or Solaris on it, who is responsible for the usability of that system? Is it the hardware maker or the maker of the OS?
By what you are saying here, if Solaris on a Dell doesn't run as good as Solaris on a Sun, then Dell should fix the problem (and not Sun).
Is this the logic you are following?
RacerX said:Quick question... If I buy a computer (a PC) that came with Windows pre-installed and I installed Linux or Solaris on it, who is responsible for the usability of that system? Is it the hardware maker or the maker of the OS?
By what you are saying here, if Solaris on a Dell doesn't run as good as Solaris on a Sun, then Dell should fix the problem (and not Sun).
Is this the logic you are following?
If the maker of the PC you buy 'supports' the operating system you are installing by supplying drivers for those alternate OS's, it is up to the maker of the PC to fix their drivers. Otherwise, they can't really claim their system will run that operating system. Apple claims their systems "do windows too". It's right there in the commercials and on the bootcamp site. They should then in turn supply the proper drivers to allow that operating system to function properly. Currently, it does not function properly.
By the way, this is my final reponse to you RacerX. It's pretty obvious we aren't going to agree on this.
jrk07 and sirnoh,
Thanks. You understand my point of this post. I'm not here to argue the fact that I bought a Mac and not a Windows machine. Duh. But I bought a Mac that, on paper, looks like an awesome Windows PC too, on paper at least. My post is just to inform others who may look at the specs and even though it has Intel CPU's inside and Apple claims "does Windows too...", currently it doesn't run Windows very well. There are a LOT of others out there like me who wanted to have the best of both worlds and, right now, the Mac Pro doesn't fulfill that need.
Thanks. You understand my point of this post. I'm not here to argue the fact that I bought a Mac and not a Windows machine. Duh. But I bought a Mac that, on paper, looks like an awesome Windows PC too, on paper at least. My post is just to inform others who may look at the specs and even though it has Intel CPU's inside and Apple claims "does Windows too...", currently it doesn't run Windows very well. There are a LOT of others out there like me who wanted to have the best of both worlds and, right now, the Mac Pro doesn't fulfill that need.
RacerX said:Quick question... If I buy a computer (a PC) that came with Windows pre-installed and I installed Linux or Solaris on it, who is responsible for the usability of that system? Is it the hardware maker or the maker of the OS?
By what you are saying here, if Solaris on a Dell doesn't run as good as Solaris on a Sun, then Dell should fix the problem (and not Sun).
Is this the logic you are following?
Actually, in this particular example, if Dell's BIOS specifically prohibited Solaris from running properly, Sun would have to hack their Kernel to work around the BIOS issue, which I doubt they would be willing to do.
But at the same time, you are correct, Dell has no obligation to support Solaris.
The real answer is, if you want to run Solaris, you buy a different machine that specifies and advertises that it is Solaris compatible.
Apple is in a grey area here. They are the first manufacturer that I know of who is marketing their machine as Windows capable, with Boot Camp, but who say they do not support Windows. There is nothing wrong with that, really, just as long as they are willing to accept a higher return rate from Windows users who were willing to make the move over to the Apple platform.
If Boot Camp shipped in Leopard with this issue, then I would say that Apple is entirely responsible. Right now, considering Boot Camp is beta software, the responsibility lies with the end user.
Have you (or someone else) tried using a FW800 external drive enclosure with a HD that has Windows on it and booting off of that? The theoretical max bandwidth is much higher than most HDs can deliver, so I'd imagine that it would perform well enough for your needs until Apple fixes the DMA issue.
tobyg said:
I'm pretty much in this same situation. Your post got me thinking about returning my Mac Pro, building a Core 2 Duo Windows system for gaming, and grabbing a Conroe/Merom Mac mini (when available) to satisfy my day-to-day browsing and work needs. I could probably do that for well under the cost of the Mac Pro, considering I already have most of the PC components.
sirnh said:
And I bought it fully understanding that. I hope they do support Windows in the long run. For now, I will return mine and pay the restocking fee. No problem.
And like I said. If Dell sold PC's saying they support Solaris, it's up to them to supply the drivers. If dell doesn't sell PC's that say they support Solaris but Solaris said their software works on a Dell machine, then it would be up to Solaris to supply the drivers or fixes to make the software work. Apple doesn't sell Windows, but they claim their machines run Windows with Bootcamp. Then it becomes up to Apple to supply the drivers.
The Inevitable said:
I've never heard of being able to boot Windows off of a firewire drive. Supposedly you can hack at it and boot off of USB, but that is not a path I'm going to go down. You have to intermix SP1 USB drivers with SP2 or something crazy. I didn't read all of the details, but it's definitely not something I want to do.
kingjr3 said:
Please. Are we really arguing Semantics.
Let's say that you bought a big 4x4 truck... with the ability to "run" in two "environments"...
One was regular roads, which you could run 150+MPH no problem.
The other was offroad.
Now, no manufacturer will NOT SUPPORT you going offroad... however, they let you know that it's the ONLY Car that lets you go offroad AND run 150+MPH on regular roads.
Only, you buy it... and find out that.. yes, you technically CAN go offroading in it... but only at 5MPH because of some sort of mechnical glitch that they didn't catch in testing.
You'd return the car, right?
Why is that so difficult to understand. Knowing that many gamers/pros were WAITING for this to come out... they should not have released the Mac Pro without this being ready to rock.
i'll never understand what goes on in some of your heads sometimes. the thing has been out what, a week? two weeks? and you're already selling pcs and replacing windows machines without even seeing how windows runs on it? it's not a core duo like the other macs, it's a xeon. different animal there, so wouldn't it be wise to see how it works from people who are buying it as a mac and will install windows on it too before dropping the cash or selling off your current machines?
and you bought a mac, not a pc. i intend on buying a mbp when merom hits, but i realize it's a mac first and foremost, and i let some time go by to make sure i could easily boot into windows and do the couple of things i might want to do. i didn't buy one on release day and cross my fingers and hope for the best.
people already knew what you made this thread to tell them, because there are a bunch of threads saying the same thing already about sata performance.
and you bought a mac, not a pc. i intend on buying a mbp when merom hits, but i realize it's a mac first and foremost, and i let some time go by to make sure i could easily boot into windows and do the couple of things i might want to do. i didn't buy one on release day and cross my fingers and hope for the best.
people already knew what you made this thread to tell them, because there are a bunch of threads saying the same thing already about sata performance.
MacProGuy said:
that's the worst comparison ever, quite possibly. and guess what, that already happens. you can drive fast in a ford explorer on the highway, but try taking one offroad, you surely aren't going very fast and you probably aren't going to get very far unless your idea of offroad is gravel.
nice try tho.
reading some of the posts leads me to believe some have never heard the term "unsatisfied customer".
toby, good luck on your next purchase...thanks for the mac pro warning/caution post.
toby, good luck on your next purchase...thanks for the mac pro warning/caution post.
f1sh3r said:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what goes on in YOUR head sometimes.
I mean, and I'm not trying to get Nasty...
But...
I CAN BUY A XEON MACHINE FROM DELL AND GET FULL SATA SPEED. So, why would I NOT expect the same from Apple who is using ALL INTEL PeeCee Standard Parts (as far as Windows XP is concerned) save for the Video Card.
I would think that when a Machine is released, it is ready for PRIME TIME.
Would you buy a TOASTER and then wait for an update to have it cook properly? HECK NO! You'd return it.
Also, this leaves a BAD TASTE in the mouths of PeeCee people who thought about switching.
I've NEVER bought a PeeCee and not been able to run XP fine out of the box.
Same thing. Had I bought a DELL that claimed to run an OS... and it didn't... I'd return the Dell.
Stop being a hard core Apple Fanboy and look at reality:
IT WASN'T QUITE READY FOR PRIME TIME YET.
Bootcamp is BETA. That is only the drivers.
You don't need BOOTCAMP to run Windows.
End of Story.
- Status