This is not a "Pro" machine.

[flat five]

he's saying the New Mac Pro will have even more cables as it requires more of the computer outside of the case. If you think you have cable problems now, imagine when your sound card, optical drive, platter drives are outside the case.

i guess you're saying 'you' in general? because if you mean 'you' as in me, that's not how things will pan out (as far as i can tell at this point).

i'll have less cables.. but again, i said the mess i can deal with.. the amount of cables is whatever.. it's the fact that i can plug a mbp into one of the monitors or into the macpro or into the storage etc.. all with the same cables.. so what if there a 5 laying there.. just grab whatever and plug it into whatever.. do you see the point I'm trying to make?

re: the out_of_case storage.. that's a good thing to.. a box that houses a few drives- easier accessibility, you can turn it off, move all your data around (the hardware) way easier..

and seriously, who cares if thunderbolt is only X amount faster or This amount slower.. because if i'm moving anything more than say 10gb between drives, i'm outta there.. that type of speed, in a whole lot of circumstances, is highly irrelevant because it's running while you're not working.. say i could move 100gb in 1 second? that's nearly unimaginable in this decade and it's seemingly what a lot of you all are complaining about.. but so what about that type of speed.. if i have to move 100gb, i'll do it during lunch or while i sleep or in the background of the actual work. it's batch work, you know, big deal.. you personally do the same amount of work which is select all the files and point where they going to.. gazillionbitsasecond isn't going to make your work any faster..

As far as your current cable mess, how is that aided by having thunderbolt at all? Are you going to throw your mouse, keyboard, and printer away? Are you going to get a thunderbolt monitor? Do thunderbolt monitors have fewer cables than DVI all of a sudden?

again.. it's not about the amount (even though you can (could?should?) see that in my scenario at least, i'd end up with fewer cables.


i'll get a thunderbolt monitor eventually i'm sure.. possibly even this year.. i have a 24" that's been to the shop twice in the past 7 years and next time it dies, it will be replaced instead of repaired..

This whole argument is ridiculous. I'm sorry that the connectivtity of the current formfactor is confusing or bewildering for you. Maybe you can just throw your whole desktop away and buy a MacBook Air?

if my whole argument is ridiculous then i think it's just a matter of miscommunication.. are you sure you understand what i'm saying prior to claiming ridic?

 

[flat five]

Since when is a workstation supposed to be modular? I dunno about you but after all the time I put into to making a workstation the way I want it and routing and tucking, hiding cables...the last thing I want is to break pieces off and constantly reconfigure stuff.

since when? i don't know.. but that's how it is

the thing about your fancy cable routing etc is that thunderbolt will actually allow my type of person to be more organized regarding cable clutter.. most of them can be routed and tied and never have to move etc.. if i need a loose connector, i'll have one or two in the backpack.. no need to unwrap that oddball cord that's so nicely routed.. there is no (or a lot less) oddball cable.

If you constantly unplug your monitors from your tower and hook them up to you laptop, you should get a better tower or just get rid of it altogether.

yeah.. i tried 17" powerbooks as my only computers once.. it lasted about 7 months.

and sometimes, a monitor can travel with a laptop so i don't see how a better tower solves anything here

 

[flat five]

This whole argument is ridiculous. I'm sorry that the connectivtity of the current formfactor is confusing or bewildering for you. Maybe you can just throw your whole desktop away and buy a MacBook Air?

also.. i don't see how a macbook air fits in at all if my desktop weren't there.. (like your statement make zero sense to me)..
an air could (and probably will eventually) replace one of the mbps.. i'd really rather replace one of them with an ipad but the right software isn't there yet.. and not even really close to being there yet.

 

[scottsjack]

Hmmm, nobody interested in this worn out topic except flat five.

 

[thekev]

and seriously, who cares if thunderbolt is only X amount faster or This amount slower.. because if i'm moving anything more than say 10gb between drives, i'm outta there.. that type of speed, in a whole lot of circumstances, is highly irrelevant because it's running while you're not working.. say i could move 100gb in 1 second? that's nearly unimaginable in this decade and it's seemingly what a lot of you all are complaining about.. but so what about that type of speed.. if i have to move 100gb, i'll do it during lunch or while i sleep or in the background of the actual work. it's batch work, you know, big deal.. you personally do the same amount of work which is select all the files and point where they going to.. gazillionbitsasecond isn't going to make your work any faster..

Are you sure you're not confusing gigabits (gb) with gigabytes (GB)? It's not even moving to or from. Much of the time it's reading or writing data on the same set of drives. Some of them deal with video where you need a specific amount of bandwidth to work with footage at a given resolution.

since when? i don't know.. but that's how it is

It's not really that way. Much of the design places bets on either lesser dependence on specialized hardware, or that the majority of it will be designed with notebook users in mind. Either that or Apple wanted to consolidate to only supporting one thing. They do tend to go with what is easiest for them.

 

[flat five]

Are you sure you're not confusing gigabits (gb) with gigabytes (GB)? It's not even moving to or from. Much of the time it's reading or writing data on the same set of drives. Some of them deal with video where you need a specific amount of bandwidth to work with footage at a given resolution.

the working files are always on the boot drive in my case.. (and i pretty much really do mean always..)

i don't see how things will be slower in this regard? they'll be faster actually, right?

 

[flat five]

Hmmm, nobody interested in this worn out topic except flat five.

i'm not interested in the topic .. i probably read 10% of what's being written and scan over all the jocked out geekbench mumbojumbo that has next to zero bearing on wether or not this is a 'pro' machine.

 

[thekev]

the working files are always on the boot drive in my case.. (and i pretty much really do mean always..)

i don't see how things will be slower in this regard? they'll be faster actually, right?

Well I had a couple points. One was that 1Gb (any lower case) is 1/8th the size of 1 GB. I personally like to keep as much as possible internal with only backups running external. Externals are very good for performance reasons, as you can get things like SAS out that are ridiculously fast and much more mature than thunderbolt. Internal is convenient. My luck with cheap jbod boxes isn't so great. With internal you're plugging into chipset ports. I guess thunderbolt in terms of performance would be between those two. The options are still pretty limiting at this point. I still think where it's not hampered by port requirements, they seem to be betting on OpenCL taking over functions of additional "acceleration" hardware over time. That is also typical, although I don't know whether it's feasible with some of the hardware mentioned.

 

[flat five]

Externals are very good for performance reasons, as you can get things like SAS out that are ridiculously fast and much more mature than thunderbolt.

right.. what i was getting at earlier though was even it it were mega-riculously fast, does it make my workload any less?

because the less time i spend working a computer, the better.. but the type of speed a lot of people are talking about here is not the same type of speed which will allow me to draw for 3hrs as opposed to 5..

those types of gains are on the software side of things along with the way we interact with computers (ie- mouse & keyboard are horrible for this when compared to how fast we can have the initial thoughts)

 

[ancelrick]

I still won't own a laptop without an optical drive. I also still own a floppy drive for flashing BIOS'

Thank you for providing context for the rest of your posts..

 

[GermanyChris]

Thank you for providing context for the rest of your posts..

You don't need to search out context, just ask.

 

[Tesselator]

I thought PCIe 3.0 2x was 2GBps--the same as TB 2.0. Is that incorrect

Sounds right. I'm too lazy to check as it's 36˚C in my room right now and it's 12:30am (a little past midnight).

Also, I like how you say TB is going to be the end of PCIe and in the very next paragraph point out one of the pitfalls: that external boxes for internal components is not economical or elegant.

Right, no. I was saying that having to buy a box from a 4th party to house a 3rd party card is not all that cool. The 3rd party manufacturers should include one of their own design specifically for the card they wish to offer as a stand-alone device.

How about just having more PCIe slots? As PCIe storage becomes more available, so will demand for more PCIe slots. There are already LGA 2011 mobos available with 6 PCIe slots (four 16x, one 8x, one 1x). Being as how TB drives aren't even widely available yet, doesn't this make TB obsolete right out of the gate?

Well, Apple has spoken. Whether we like it or not TB2 has replaced PCIe slots. And, that as they say is, all she wrote.

Here's a scenario: my PC Mobo has only 3 PCIe slots and one has my GPU. I want two very fast SSD hard drives (either SSD over TB or PCIe). Do I either A) pay $400 and get a motherboard with 6 slots or B) Buy a motherboard with Two TB ports so I can pay a ridiculous premium to buy two SSD over TB (do these even exist yet?) requiring their own enclosure and $50 in wiring, and space on my desk.

Thunderbolt on the mac side of things might putter along for a while, just like firewire did. PCs have already established a better solution.

Yup, you get it. The only way around this is to buy a PC. Starting in a couple of months there will be no Macintosh machines that offer PCIe slots. Besides old refurbished or used on e-bay PCIe slots are finished and kaput. So in reality it's an absolute fact that TB2 has replaced PCIe slot options. Now all that's left is to decide to either make the most of it or give up on Apple.

IMHO, we can and will continue to be able to "make the most of it" with absolutely no limitations. TB2 covers all the bases 100% as Apple intends to market the machine and as they intended to market all past MacPro models. This means that they have gone a step further in forcing users to select from their very limited GPU option range. They have always intended it to be this way and now it is. One can still get around it via TB2 --> PCIe Expansion box and in 90% of the usage profiles the GPUs in question will operate at identical speeds as compared to the same card installed internally.

 

[slughead]

Well, Apple has spoken. Whether we like it or not TB2 has replaced PCIe slots. And, that as they say is, all she wrote.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the whole market, not just macs. In that case I agree. Others have held out hope Apple will continue manufacturing the old formfactor--I believe that is highly unlikely.

One can still get around it via TB2 --> PCIe Expansion box and in 90% of the usage profiles the GPUs in question will operate at identical speeds as compared to the same card installed internally.

I disagree, it varies largely depending on which kind of card you're using and what you're using it for. In general, NVidia don't do as well with lower bandwidth. In addition, as framerates increase (for instance, with faster cards), the difference between higher and lower bandwidth will become more apparent. I can find data on the 7970 and GTX680 running at lower bandwidth, but one can only assume that if the GTX680 is having trouble at 2GBps (~5-10% drop in framerate), the GTX780, GTX690, and Titan cards are going to be evicerated. Not to mention, SLI and crossfire aren't even options with Thunderbolt 2.

Again, the nMP is 6 months away, so if the sacrifice for Thunderbolt2 GPUs is (theoretically) this bad now, imagine what will happen with future technology.

And I want to point out also: The nMP will come with some pretty powerful GPUs out of the box, by the time you want to "upgrade," the cards that would offer any advantage will only be even more powerful and require even more bandwidth.

To say that 90% of users needs are met by GPUs running at 2GBps is deceptive--you're using present user needs with future limitations. You are STUCK with 2GBps PCIe chassis with the nMP for all your future GPU needs; be honest, you think that will be adequate for 90% of what people will want 1-2 years from now (or, more preciesely, 1-2 years from when the nMP comes out).

 

[MacVidCards]

I'm trying to remember if there has been a "it's the latest & greatest new thing, jump on board" piece of tech before that included "It may cost more money, but it is almost 90% as fast as the cheaper thing you used to use".

I just don't recall anyone trying to sell us on newer tech that contained slower connections and higher cost as "pluses".

Same thing with the five guy, "my computer is already plenty fast, I don't care if new ones aren't any faster, just so long as all my cables match" with "and I'm eager to pay $50 each for nicely matching cables to replace the unruly tangle of $5 USB and $10 firewire cables"

I thought we used to get excited by things getting faster & cheaper.

Aside from which, any discussion of GPU via TB in OSX is still in Vapourware Fantasy Land. No such beast yet. Nobody makes one, it doesn't exist. They all very carefully specify what PCIE cards work and leave off GPUs.

 

[flat five]

Same thing with the five guy, "my computer is already plenty fast, I don't care if new ones aren't any faster, just so long as all my cables match"

huh? nowhere did i say that.. if you want to argue both sides to support your case (say what you want then make up sht about what the other people say) then you're not going to have anybody taking you seriously after they see through it.. here you go- maybe they can help:


there is a nerd spec in the new mac pro that excites me.. 6x 3.5ghz.. that's something i will notice and feel when i'm working.. (as opposed to 2.66 at the moment)

the rest of the specs i don't care so much about but even then, everything in my current setup will be faster in a new mp setup (though i won't notice it like that- i won't be buying brand new stuff all at once.. things trickle in on an as needed basis with a few bonus buys sprinkled throughout)

 

[slughead]

huh? nowhere did i say that.. if you want to argue both sides to support your case (say what you want then make up sht about what the other people say) then you're not going to have anybody taking you seriously after they see through it.. here you go- maybe they can help:

Okay, what were you saying then? What advantages does thunderbolt bring to your "Cable situation." My suspicion is the same as MacVidCards--that you just like a fancy new cable, even though it doesn't consolidate any of the cabling you were complaining about or bring you any new functionality. You will still use USB for your printer, you will likely want USB3 for your drives (TB sounds like an overkill for your setup), you will still require a cable for your monitor.

You called DVI "Lame" and mention you're upset by having cables come out of the front of your case... Well you know you can just buy PCIe drive controllers to put the cables in the back, right? You know eSATA is cheaper and faster than FW, right? You know you're going to be paying a lot more to convert your external drive to something thunderbolt compatible, and that it will be no faster, right? You know you don't have to use DVI if you don't want to--you can use [mini]display port and that the monitors are cheaper (though no better), right?

What is your point? What makes Firepoo, I mean Thunderbolt better for YOU?

 

[flat five]

Okay, what were you saying then? What advantages does thunderbolt bring to your "Cable situation." My suspicion is the same as MacVidCards--that you just like a fancy new cable, even though it doesn't consolidate any of the cabling you were complaining about or bring you any new functionality.

it does bring new functionality.. i can plug whatever into whatever using a standard cable.

i mean, it's like you guys are arguing that it's somehow better for my lamp to have a different plug than my vacuum which is different than my microwave.. it makes no sense.. the less connectors the better.. that's all there is to it..

You will still use USB for your printer, you will likely want USB3 for your drives (TB sounds like an overkill for your setup), you will still require a cable for your monitor.

i'd eventually like to get the printing being done wirelessly (though more and more lately, i'm outsourcing my printing anyway)..

how do you mean 'TB sounds like overkill?'.. do you really think i have a problem with spending $200 on cables instead of $50 in order to have a unified solution? to me, it's a no brainer.. i can have $9725 worth of computer equipment or $9875.. is there really a difference in the big picture?

You called DVI "Lame" and mention you're upset by having cables come out of the front of your case...

i called dvi lame because of the screws and (relative) hassle of installing them..

cables out of the front have to do with needing several varieties in order to accommodate the different things i may need to attach.. with TB, there would only need to be one loose/unattached cable and i can still plug everything in- be it a drive or a laptop etc.. and the new macpro form factor gets it off the floor..

Well you know you can just buy PCIe drive controllers to put the cables in the back, right?

so what.. then it's just longer cords as they still need to reach to an accommodating place.. (and those cords may go with me at times.. as mentioned earlier, i'd rather not go under the desk and behind the tower to mess with cords_

You know eSATA is cheaper and faster than FW, right? You know you're going to be paying a lot more to convert your external drive to something thunderbolt compatible, and that it will be no faster, right? You know you don't have to use DVI if you don't want to--you can use [mini]display port and that the monitors are cheaper (though no better), right?

so what? and just to let you in on a little secret, in most businesses, the clients pay for your tools..

What is your point? What makes Firepoo, I mean Thunderbolt better for YOU?

i feel like i stated my points already.. but i guess you don't care enough to see what it is i'm actually saying.. no biggie tho- that's pretty much every single interweb argument where two people have differing opinions or wants or needs..

 

[slughead]

it does bring new functionality.. i can plug whatever into whatever using a standard cable.

You will still have to have cables for each device, and some devices would be silly/impossible to hook to TB--printers, low-speed storage, mouse/keyboard etc. If you want to wireless printing, what's stopping you now?

i mean, it's like you guys are arguing that it's somehow better for my lamp to have a different plug than my vacuum which is different than my microwave.. it makes no sense.. the less connectors the better.. that's all there is to it..

No, your lamp should be plugged into a two-pronged electrical outlet running at 120VAC, because otherwise you'd need a transformer and possibly a more expensive cable for no reason. A 240VAC plug (as is used for your washer/dryer) would be silly. A 12VDC automobile plug would require an expensive inductor.

You use the tool that's right for the job, not pay more for no advantage.

how do you mean 'TB sounds like overkill?'.. do you really think i have a problem with spending $200 on cables instead of $50 in order to have a unified solution? to me, it's a no brainer.. i can have $9725 worth of computer equipment or $9875.. is there really a difference in the big picture?

1) It's NOT a unified solution (see above) 2) What is the advantage of having 1 type of cable for different devices, especially when it's ridiculously expensive and adds NO additional advantage?

If you're doing fine with firewire for your external drives, USB 3.0 is more than adequate in terms of bandwidth. Also, the enclosures are much cheaper.

i called dvi lame because of the screws and (relative) hassle of installing them..

Then use display port / Mini DisplayPort? The monitors are much cheaper and you have a lot more choices in video cards. You can even buy a KVM to make your toggling between monitors easier. There doesn't exist a KVM over thunderbolt yet, as far as I know.

cables out of the front have to do with needing several varieties in order to accommodate the different things i may need to attach..

Then put the cables in the back? You know you can even buy USB 3.0 switches to toggle your storage between your laptop and desktop (you can also use a KVM for that). There is no solution like this for thunderbolt yet to my knowledge.

 

[flat five]

You will still have to have cables for each device, and some devices would be silly/impossible to hook to TB--printers, low-speed storage, mouse/keyboard etc. If you want to wireless printing, what's stopping you now?

i just don't print like i used to.. most documents are now 100% electronic for me.. the prints that i do actually need for work are big (as in 4'x12' big) and there's no (real) way for me to justify that cost (of a large format printer)..

anyway, let's just say my printers are low priority

No, your lamp should be plugged into a two-pronged electrical outlet running at 120VAC, because ....

i don't know this for a fact but it doesn't take too much imagination to realize there was a time when a 2pronged outlet wasn't standard.. and i'm sure tons of people were making very similar arguments against a standard plug vs the already available ones.. you're not saying nothing new here.. it's been going on well before your time.. some people don't mind progressing as much as others but do notice that many (most?all?) industries have standardized electrical connectors.. data transfer etc is still relatively new but in the future, expect to see a much more singular connection.. fight it all you want but it doesn't matter-- it's going to happen regardless of how upsetting it is to you.

There is no solution like this for thunderbolt yet to my knowledge.

and hey, like i said, i'm not trying to upgrade everything at once.. this new macpro changes nothing about how i'll add and retire elements from from the toolkit.. (it just so happens that i'm ready to upgrade the desktop- and for all i know, if the new mp doesn't come soon, i'll be getting a current model because my macpro began rebooting at random.. i reset the smc which helped but i did get a shut down a couple of days ago)..

anyway, i hope that everything thunderbolt isn't already laid out on the table and what we see is what we get.. i 100% believe the technology will continue to evolve.

 

[-hh]

it does bring new functionality.. i can plug whatever into whatever using a standard cable.

i mean, it's like you guys are arguing that it's somehow better for my lamp to have a different plug than my vacuum which is different than my microwave.. it makes no sense.. the less connectors the better.. that's all there is to it..

Hmmm...not all electrical supply plugs are equal:

how do you mean 'TB sounds like overkill?'.. do you really think i have a problem with spending $200 on cables instead of $50 in order to have a unified solution? to me, it's a no brainer.. i can have $9725 worth of computer equipment or $9875.. is there really a difference in the big picture?

Let's go back to your home and look at your lamp, microwave and vacuum: do you currently have "Universal Travel Adaptors" installed on each and every device, just in case you might move households to a different country? Afterall, at $40 each, even if you need fifty of them, that's still only $2,000 which is a tiny percentage and "No difference in the big picture" from the context of your $250,000 house.

i called dvi lame because of the screws and (relative) hassle of installing them..

An understandable sentiment for when the application is a portable system. Is this one?

cables out of the front have to do with needing several varieties in order to accommodate the different things i may need to attach.. with TB, there would only need to be one loose/unattached cable and i can still plug everything in- be it a drive or a laptop etc.. and the new macpro form factor gets it off the floor..

First, Thunderbolt doesn't permit two PCs to be networked together, so hooking up your laptop to a Mac Pro via TB simply isn't an option: another (different) cable will be required.

Second, no Thunderbolt-to-USB adaptor exist yet, so connecting your iPhone isn't an option either...nor a lot of other USB based devices: another (different) cable will be required.

so what.. then it's just longer cords as they still need to reach to an accommodating place.. (and those cords may go with me at times.. as mentioned earlier, i'd rather not go under the desk and behind the tower to mess with cords_

If you need more than 10ft length, how does $831 per cable sound? The reality is that when the price for your personal convenience becomes too high, you'll choose to crawl under your desk.

so what? and just to let you in on a little secret, in most businesses, the clients pay for your tools..

Golly, and here I was under the impression that a client pays for my services! What I also know is that why my tools cost too much, then there's no money left over for me to be paid too. Sure, I can try raising my rates...and then lose customers to the competition.


-hh

 

[MatthewAMEL]

I'm trying to remember if there has been a "it's the latest & greatest new thing, jump on board" piece of tech before that included "It may cost more money, but it is almost 90% as fast as the cheaper thing you used to use".

I just don't recall anyone trying to sell us on newer tech that contained slower connections and higher cost as "pluses".

It made me laugh because I can remember this vividly.

The 486DX4 outran the Pentium P5 (60MHz and 66MHz) pretty handily.

I don't think I would say that made the Pentium architecture a failure because it's initial iterations were slower than the tech it was replacing.

 

[thekev]

right.. what i was getting at earlier though was even it it were mega-riculously fast, does it make my workload any less?

because the less time i spend working a computer, the better.. but the type of speed a lot of people are talking about here is not the same type of speed which will allow me to draw for 3hrs as opposed to 5..

those types of gains are on the software side of things along with the way we interact with computers (ie- mouse & keyboard are horrible for this when compared to how fast we can have the initial thoughts)

In relation to 3 hours instead of 5, it makes a bigger difference when you start to deal with enormous quantities of data. Many of these guys deal with video, so it has to read in without dropping frames at whatever resolution.

 

[flat five]

installed on each and every device, just in case you might move households to a different country? Afterall, at $40 each, even if you need fifty of them, that's still only $2,000 which is a tiny percentage and "No difference in the big picture" from the context of your $250,000 house.

no, i don't have converters and plugs etc for all countries.. but you're kind of enforcing what i'm getting at.. if i did constantly travel back&forth to other countries with all my electronics then i would have to have all these different plugs.. in which case, i'd be harping on about the need for a worldwide electrical standard (and don't kid yourself, that's going to happen eventually too.. with many more naysayers to boot).. but as it is now, at my desk-- so many of the peripherals are in fact foreign to the others regarding their connectors.

An understandable sentiment for when the application is a portable system. Is this one?

mine? yes.. not only do i sometimes have displays in different locations for my laptops but i'll occasionally (2-3x/year) have my desktop in other locations.

and hey, i get it.. everyone's needs aren't the same as mine and some people's computers sit in one place their whole lifetime etc.. i really do get that.. but everything i'm talking about here is, for the most part, my own experiences.. i'm not talking about these ever elusive 'pros' and what they need.. who is they and why are so many people in this thread arguing on their behalf.. comes across as a bunch of bs to me..

likewise, i personally know of one ad house here in the city which uses strictly mac (except their accounting dept.).. we're talking probably 120 desks spread over multiple floors.. and every 3 months, they move desks.. that's just an example of a place with needs far greater than mine which will definitely welcome more portability and easier connections..

First, Thunderbolt doesn't permit two PCs to be networked together, so hooking up your laptop to a Mac Pro via TB simply isn't an option: another (different) cable will be required.

really? that's a bummer.. i currently use fw800 for this and assumed TB would do the same.. i guess there's a better option for me anyway and that's hooking up the nodes wirelessly.. dunno, i haven't had much luck in the past going that route but it might be due to my super old router (that weird bubbly one apple sold a long time ago.. maybe the first airport?).. computers drop out of the network and it seems slower than the firewire..

Second, no Thunderbolt-to-USB adaptor exist yet, so connecting your iPhone isn't an option either...nor a lot of other USB based devices: another (different) cable will be required.

i sync my phone with a laptop instead of the desktop but yeah, it is another cable.. at least it's the same cord which also plugs into the wall and car/plane charger..

If you need more than 10ft length, how does $831 per cable sound? The reality is that when the price for your personal convenience becomes too high, you'll choose to crawl under your desk.

ha.. really? i'm glad i don't need 10 ft then
but i'm sure these prices will come down.. (and i'm pretty sure you all know they will to but it doesn't support your arguments at the moment so why bother)

Golly, and here I was under the impression that a client pays for my services! What I also know is that why my tools cost too much, then there's no money left over for me to be paid too. Sure, I can try raising my rates...and then lose customers to the competition.

right.. raise your rates.. if the computer is necessary for you to produce the expected work then it's a cost of doing business.

----------

In relation to 3 hours instead of 5, it makes a bigger difference when you start to deal with enormous quantities of data. Many of these guys deal with video, so it has to read in without dropping frames at whatever resolution.

i don't do video..
that said, i haven't seen anyone around here saying 'i do video and i can no longer do it on macs'.. the people that really can't use macs for video work aren't.. it's a pretty simple equation from where i'm sitting

 

[beaker7]

i don't do video..
that said, i haven't seen anyone around here saying 'i do video and i can no longer do it on macs'.. the people that really can't use macs for video work aren't.. it's a pretty simple equation from where i'm sitting

We do many things, including high res video. Currently on (mostly) Macs. We could do it on the new Mac Pro going forward if we wanted to. It would work.

The problem is, we'll be able to do it more than twice as fast on the PC workstations we are migrating towards now due to the new design.

What is bizarre about the new design choice is that Apple is choosing to shrink their market even further.

If Apple had continued with a tower design with SP and DP options, with slots, the mid to low end users who used to buy the SP version could just continue buying the SP version and be happy. The high end users could've continued to pay more for the DP version if they needed it.

With the new design, any users that need top-end performance are no longer part of their market. Apple simply doesnt offer a product for them any more.

I like OSX, I prefer it to Windows, but not at the expense of making a 3 hour task take 6 or 7 hours.

 

[flat five]

I like OSX, I prefer it to Windows, but not at the expense of making a 3 hour task take 6 or 7 hours.

if that's in fact a real or even somewhat close to being real comparison then yeah, it's basically a no brainer.. if i could do my work in half the time simply by switching to windows then i'd do it..

most of the software i use is cross platform and functions equally on both OS's.. the only way to get any noticeable performance gains (assuming you already have decent ram and graphics) is to throw a faster cpu at it (or more cpus during some tasks)