Mac Pro

[Transcend]

Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?

[binary visions]

:rofl:

Let me just say, first off, that it looks beautiful and functional.

But some of this s**t cracks me up:

To help dissipate heat, every Apple DIMM you purchase for your Mac Pro comes with its own preinstalled heat sink. This unique heat sink lets fans run slower — and quieter — yet keeps the memory cool enough to run at full speed.
Yeah! Totally unique! I've never heard of a heat sink on memory before!

...I'm looking through the store here, and holy bejeezus do they rape you in the butt with some of these items. The upgrade from 2GB to 4GB of RAM is $800! An extra DVD burner is $100?! $400 extra to get a 500GB drive added?!?!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Those prices are absolutely astronomical. $0.80/gb for a hard drive space? $800 for 2GB of RAM, are they flippin' nuts?

On the plus side, if you have unlimited money to burn, you can have 2TB of hard drive space, 16GB of RAM, 4x GeForce 7300GTs and 4x 3ghz processors. I mean, it'll set you back a cool ten grand without a monitor or Bluetooth, but it's there :dead:

[dante]

eh, it's an Apple, so people are used to overpaying for things... :rofl:

[binary visions]

eh, it's an Apple, so people are used to overpaying for things... :rofl:
Overpaying is one thing. Buying that RAM is getting sodomized with a telephone pole. Without lube.

[Transcend]

Moral of the story - never upgrade at apple.

I got the dual 2.66 with 1 gb of ram and the 7300gt. A gb of
ecc full bufferred ram is about $204 from newegg (kingston/crucial etc). Apple wants $335.

Total price was $2632cnd with the 250gb HDD, 1gb ram, bluetooth and 2 2.66 woodcrests. Oh, and I got a free 2gb ipod nano due to buying it educational.

Crazy.

[binary visions]

Well, it certainly looks pretty, and the hard drive carriers are neat. I just can't see paying that kind of money for a computer, let alone the upgrades. I could put together one hell of a component spec for the $2,499 base price.

Too bad.

[Transcend]

Well, it certainly looks pretty, and the hard drive carriers are neat. I just can't see paying that kind of money for a computer, let alone the upgrades. I could put together one hell of a component spec for the $2,499 base price.

Too bad.

Well considering those processors are $750 each in volumes of 1000 (each machine has 2) and it uses fully bufferred ecc dual channel ram...you'd be pretty hard pressed to get anything better for that money.

[spincrazy]

Apple RAM is stupid expensive - most definitely.

Think of it in terms of say buying a Sony vs buying an HP.

[Transcend]

Apple ram is usually just crucial (micron) with the price way up. Crucial pricing on the same ram is $204 for 1gb.

[Pau11y]

For what you get from Crucial, it's pretty spendy w/ regards to timing and overclockability.

[Transcend]

For what you get from Crucial, it's pretty spendy w/ regards to timing and overclockability.

Ya, but kingston and everyone else is about the same price. Fully bufferred ram is PRICEY.

[binary visions]

Well considering those processors are $750 each in volumes of 1000 (each machine has 2) and it uses fully bufferred ecc dual channel ram...you'd be pretty hard pressed to get anything better for that money.

Yeah, but, uh, why?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819117075

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's got a slower FSB. It's not going to run quite as fast. But it's not going to run half as slow, either, and it's half the frickin' price. Just seems expensive to me. Seems like Apple consistantly misses the price-to-performance ratio - without fail, every time.

[syadasti]

Apple RAM is stupid expensive - most definitely.

Think of it in terms of say buying a Sony vs buying an HP.

Nah you can buy a PC system with the same Intel chipset and CPU right now (actually in July you could). The only thing that is different is the case which has no effect on the device's purpose and performance - COMPUTING. Plus the PC you could get a real videocard in without being robbed for the upgrade.

It was great - another Jobs RDF - here we have the Dell with a workstation video card and higher end Intel motherboard. Here we have the Apple with an entry level workstation motherboard and $80 videocard. See, we are cheaper when we use cheaper components - YAY!

[syadasti]

You could also buy 3 complete AMD X2 4200 or Opteron 1XX dual core systems w/2GB ram per systems with ok spec and cluster them for the same price as the single Apple dual Xeon system w/lower spec. A university did this with cheap Athlons a few years ago to make a really cheap supercomputer:D

Most people don't really need this computing power unless they are doing CPU heavy stuff. Transcend can use it, but the average user can get by with a Mac mini with Core Solo or entry level modern PC as long as it has around 512MB-1GB RAM.

[Transcend]

Well clearly the average user can get away with a MUCH cheaper system. I'll be piling on 45mb photos by the thousands, and the vid guys will use it as well. I could probably get away with something lower end (i'm on a g4 powerbook now), but I can afford it and I need tax writeoffs. I also HATE laggy systems, this thing lags unbearably when i try and pile on the work.

There is a reason it is called the Mac Pro. It's a 64b workstation. The lower end ones will be out in Spetember. (There is a Paris event this year apparently around then BTW, looked it up).

You can bet on $1500 versions with core 2 duos probably.

[binary visions]

There is a reason it is called the Mac Pro. It's a 64b workstation. The lower end ones will be out in Spetember. (There is a Paris event this year apparently around then BTW, looked it up).

You can bet on $1500 versions with core 2 duos probably.

Right. But an extra GB of RAM would be far more useful even to most pros than the small performance increase gained by going with the $750 CPU instead of the <$400 CPU. Just seems like a swing and a miss to me. There's a big power user market that WANTS the pro level specs but doesn't want to pay for the bleeding edge. Even throwing in a cheaper CPU option to knock $700 off that price would have accomplished that.

[Transcend]

There's a big power user market that WANTS the pro level specs but doesn't want to pay for the bleeding edge.

Good for them, they aren't the target market. Plenty of design firms, film companies etc will buy the mac pro.

[binary visions]

Good for them, they aren't the target market. Plenty of design firms, film companies etc will buy the mac pro.
:rolleyes:

That's fine, dude, but do you not see the point here? That's ALWAYS the problem. Someone's always outside of the target market. Apple's "target market" is too frickin' narrow, and for that, they will never significantly expand their market share.

And it's all for lame moves like this. A simple option for another CPU and removing the atrocious price gouging for their hardware is all it would take to capture another piece of the market. Yet they don't. :banghead:

[Transcend]

Price gouging? Have you specced something comparable to the mac pro from someone else?

Maybe it's the people outside the target market who don't get it. This isn't targeted at them, period. If Apple wanted to, they could put out a machine to target them (and they probably will in Paris). This machine isn't it. Deal with it.

Dell sells quad xeons too, are you going to complain that they shouldn't because you are outside of that target market as well?

[syadasti]

Good for them, they aren't the target market. Plenty of design firms, film companies etc will buy the mac pro.

But his point is is that high CPU/memory gives little to no benefit for some professional applications. Apple should make a lower model for those users.

[syadasti]

Dell sells quad xeons too, are you going to complain that they shouldn't because you are outside of that target market as well?

Neither are quad xeon - both are dual xeon dual core.

[Transcend]

Neither are quad xeon - both are dual xeon dual core.

Semantics. And as a side note, dell used to sell plenty of quad xeons in 2Us back in the day.

[syadasti]

Semantics. And as a side note, dell used to sell plenty of quad xeons in 2Us back in the day.

Mac Pro is a workstation...

[Transcend]

Mac Pro is a workstation...

Dell also sold them in regular towers, although I am sure the majority went into cabinets.

[binary visions]

Price gouging? Have you specced something comparable to the mac pro from someone else?
$800 for an extra 2GB of ram is price gouging. Period. :monkey:

Maybe it's the people outside the target market who don't get it. This isn't targeted at them, period. If Apple wanted to, they could put out a machine to target them (and they probably will in Paris). This machine isn't it. Deal with it.
Oh, yeah, I must just "not get it". Despite 10 years of hands on and professional computer experience, I just don't understand what I want :rolleyes:.

Don't you understand the point here? It's not about Apple's target. It's about an audience who is ready and willing to buy their hardware, and they need people to buy their hardware.

Dell sells quad xeons too, are you going to complain that they shouldn't because you are outside of that target market as well?
Dell isn't the one who's struggling to maintain an extremely tiny market share. Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that Apple has an opportunity with the power users market. Boot Camp, a more powerful OS and an extremely nice, appealing piece of hardware could be a powerful combination... all they have to do is be a little more flexible.

[syadasti]

You've been able to get a 16 way, 2.6GHz 8 dual core Opteron workstation for a while...but who the hell really needs that...

http://www.hpcsystems.com/workstationaw800.htm?sa_campaign=outbound_clicks/shop_us-en/HPCSystemsInc/partner-details_0_0_0_5154

AW800 – The Ultimate Desktop Personal Supercomputer
The AW800 delivers colossal 64-bit parallel computing power to your desk in a sleek, energy-efficient, and user-friendly package. The AW800’s advanced NUMA architecture gives you the freedom to run a huge selection of SMP shared-memory and distributed-memory cluster HPC Systems, Inc. applications right out of the box. Equipped with up to sixteen AMD Opteron processors, up to 64GB RAM, and over a terabyte of available internal storage, the AW80P is the ultimate high-performance workstation.

Key features:


- Up to eight (8) AMD Opteron Series 800 Processors


- Up to eight hot swappable hard disk drives


- Supports up to 128GB of DDR400/DDR333 memory


- Two (2) PCI Express x16 expansion slots


- Two (2) PCI-X expansion slots
- 1350W (3+1) hotswap redundant power supply

[Ridemonkey]

None of these alternatives run OSX.

[syadasti]

None of these alternatives run OSX.

Sure they do, just get on bit torrent - 10.4 for Intel and AMD has been out for a while (just don't use the autoupdate feature - wait for the next torrent :D ). Linux is often used in professional environments - it has better computing performance than OSX or NT which is the reason you would buy these expensive xeon CPUs - for the horsepower in specialized applications.

[Ridemonkey]

Not really into stealing software, and Linux isn't as user-friendly as OSX, nor can it run many OSX apps.

[syadasti]

Not really into stealing software, and Linux isn't as user-friendly as OSX, nor can it run many OSX apps.

And the professional users that need that computing power don't care about OSX or user friendly since they are using specialized complex applications, so you point is?

[binary visions]

And the professional users that need that computing power don't care about OSX or user friendly since they are using specialized complex applications, so you point is?
Why are you arguing this, again?

RM, you're right, none of them run OSX. My point wasn't that PCs were superior, just that Apple could do a lot better for themselves if they expanded their offerings a little. As it stands, they're offering a CPU solution that is at the top end in terms of dollar value, but not that far up in terms of performance - if they offered something with slightly less performance and a better dollar value, and paired it with that awesome case design and a solid hardware spec, they could expand to a user market.

Hell, I just want that kickass case :p

[Ridemonkey]

Oh...you mean like professional photographers? Videographers? Developers? Or anyone who feels like paying a little extra for performance and user experience in one package?

Autocad isn't the only application in the world that needs processing power Captain iPod.

[Ridemonkey]

Why are you arguing this, again?

RM, you're right, none of them run OSX. My point wasn't that PCs were superior, just that Apple could do a lot better for themselves if they expanded their offerings a little.

Hell, I just want that kickass case :p

Because he's a close-minded dunce.

I agree. I couldn't really care less about Apple hardware to be honest. If they made OSX for PCs I would run it on a less expensive, equally powerful pc.

[syadasti]

Oh...you mean like professional photographers? Videographers? Developers? Or anyone who feels like paying a little extra for performance and user experience in one package?

Autocad isn't the only application in the world that needs processing power Captain iPod.

Most of those users won't have acceptable cost/benefit to buy a 4 or 8 CPU system. Thats why most workstations are dual socket MB these days.

Normal applications - Hollywood uses SGIs (less so today) and all sorts of wacky expensive and exotic hardware/software setups. Engineering, science, military/goverment applications. I once worked for Lehman Brothers in the 90s - financial - they had about 3000 sun workstations and servers - they started around $9000 and up back then...

[Ridemonkey]

Most of those users won't have acceptable cost/benefit to buy a 4 or 8 CPU system. Thats why most workstations are duals these days.
Ok...and the Mac Pro is a dual processor system....again, what's your point?

[syadasti]

Ok...and the Mac Pro is a dual processor system....again, what's your point?

Sidetracked by semantics.

Anyhow, BV's point is right - they should offer C2D CPU/unbuffered RAM in Mac Pros to expand their potential customer base. Most of the users will get all the performance they need without the extra expensive CPU and RAM Xeon's need - lots of applications don't require the extra technical features that combo offers.

[Ridemonkey]

Ok, so now your complaint is that it's too powerful for "most" users?

[syadasti]

Ok, so now your complaint is that it's too powerful for "most" users?

No it will have expensive technical features some users don't need. The performance differences some professional applications will be minimal - the cost/benefit way out of wack for these users.

Especially not the time for these considering OSX is still transitioning to Intel code-wise - both Apple and third party apps.

The change to Intel required 86 million lines of code - you think its all optimized yet? They are running 4 months ahead of schedule, but its going to take a LONG time.

For the professional - whether it be for the technical hardware features they don't need or the lack of fully optimized OS/software - these are major barriers to adoption.

[Ridemonkey]

Yeah..."some" users won't need it, and "some" users won't buy them.

Ferrari really should release a 115hp minivan. Those 360 Modenas have way too much power for some soccer moms and the cost/benefit will be way out of whack for them.

I'm on an Intel Mac right now, and it's speed has upped my productivity greatly. Go stick your head back in the sand.

[spincrazy]

I am Apple's target market. I will have one of these as will the ad agency I work for (they will get 1000s of these worldwide). The Mac Pro is not for the everyday user. Arguing that it is too expensive and narrows the market share is of no use here. They are supplying the need of only their target market. In my industry, and many others like it, there are NO PCs. End of story. This machine will fulfill mine and others like myselfs needs at whatever price it costs because there is no other alternative.

[spincrazy]

No it will have expensive technical features some users don't need. The performance differences some professional applications will be minimal - the cost/benefit way out of wack for these users.

Especially not the time for these considering OSX is still transitioning to Intel code-wise - both Apple and third party apps.

The change to Intel required 86 million lines of code - you think its all optimized yet? They are running 4 months ahead of schedule, but its going to take a LONG time.

For the professional - whether it be for the technical hardware features they don't need or the lack of fully optimized OS/software - these are major barriers to adoption.

Those users will not buy this computer. This is not the "switch to Mac from PC" computer.

[binary visions]

Ferrari really should release a 115hp minivan. Those 360 Modenas have way too much power for some soccer moms and the cost/benefit will be way out of whack for them.
I know you're just trying to get syadasti riled up, but can we work on this analogy a little? It's pretty far out there :p

Let's try this instead: Santa Cruz should really release a lower-end spec'd Heckler (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163349). The Heckler has all the makings of a great bike since the frame is such a solid foundation, but it's just a little too far out of some people's price range.

Gee, would you look at that? ;)

This machine will fulfill mine and others like myselfs needs at whatever price it costs because there is no other alternative.
Ahh.. I see. So, because there's no alternative and Apple has you corporate guys backed into a corner, they should not try to expand their user base at all? :think:

Honestly, as hardcore bike riders, I'm pretty suprised at the argument that, "it's a pro machine. Consumers shouldn't want them."

What do you think you guys ride? Many of you are riding pro level racing equipment. Open your eyes... There's a huge power user market out there. Consumers who want professional equipment. And all it would take to tap into that is a couple choices in spec.

Those users will not buy this computer. This is not the "switch to Mac from PC" computer.
:banghead:

Why don't you understand that it could be a switch to Mac computer? ESPECIALLY now that boot camp has been thrown into the mix.

[Transcend]

And the professional users that need that computing power don't care about OSX or user friendly since they are using specialized complex applications, so you point is?

HAHAHA, you keep telling yourself that. I fyou say it enough times, you may even end up believing it! :rolleyes:

RM and I both count as professional users who need power. We both happily pay extra for the OS and user experience.

[Ridemonkey]

I know you're just trying to get syadasti riled up, but can we work on this analogy a little? It's pretty far out there :p

Let's try this instead: Santa Cruz should really release a lower-end spec'd Heckler (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163349). The Heckler has all the makings of a great bike since the frame is such a solid foundation, but it's just a little too far out of some people's price range.

Gee, would you look at that? ;)


Since Syadasti can't maintain one direction after he realizes himself that he doesn't have a point, he changed the focus of his lame argument to being that The Mac Pro is "too powerful" for some users. OF COURSE IT IS, and those users need not buy one. They can buy an iMac, or wait until they release a lesser model.

I was simply pointing out that Apple targets a certain demographic of users, and for those users this is a great machine and worth every penny...just like a Modena is great for someone who values speed.

[Transcend]

Why don't you understand that it could be a switch to Mac computer? ESPECIALLY now that boot camp has been thrown into the mix.

No it couldn't. It's too powerful and too expensive. You just said so.

[binary visions]

:nonono:

[spincrazy]

How did this turn into an expand their market share debate? Sure, there are those that spend a bizillion dollars on equipment they do not realize to it's full potential in any and all markets. Moot.

Personally, not a corporate guy. I just need a WORKSTATION for what I do. At $300/hr every minute counts. And, that has as much to do with usability, reliability, compatibility, longevity, and upgradeability as it does for performance. A PC does not offer that for me and the majority of the art world.

Why does every Apple post turn into this? They are expensive, so is a Ventanna or a Titus. Apple has a mainstream market already in the Ipods. they have done quite well holding only a small portion of the personal computer market. People are still buying them after all these years. Something must be right. Don't want to pay so much? Don't buy one.

[Transcend]

We have a winner.

[binary visions]

Turn into a market share debate? It started as one, right on the first page, and if you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to - just like I don't have to buy a Mac.

I'd hardly compare a botique company like Titus to an Apple :rolleyes:. You're paying more for a good build quality, sure. I've got no problem with paying a premium for that case, those drive carriers, the well layed out RAM riser boards... But you're paying a LOT more for the expensive hardware that they chose to put in there.

Wouldn't it be silly if you bought a Titus, but the only way they'd let you have it is with a Chris King headset and hubset, thus increasing the price by 30% or more? Don't you think that would be limiting the number of people they're selling to?

And why so defensive, anyway? Syadasti has a tendancy to simply bash Apple products, but I'm not bashing them. Quite the opposite: I'm actually mildly irked that they priced this beautiful piece of hardware out of my range. So I'm saying that, for the simple option of a processor choice, they could have had people like me - the power users who want high end equipment.

[Transcend]

Turn into a market share debate? It started as one, right on the first page, and if you didn't want to participate, you didn't have to - just like I don't have to buy a Mac.

I'd hardly compare a botique company like Titus to an Apple :rolleyes:. You're paying more for a good build quality, sure. I've got no problem with paying a premium for that case, those drive carriers, the well layed out RAM riser boards... But you're paying a LOT more for the expensive hardware that they chose to put in there.

Wouldn't it be silly if you bought a Titus, but the only way they'd let you have it is with a Chris King headset and hubset, thus increasing the price by 30% or more? Don't you think that would be limiting the number of people they're selling to?

And why so defensive, anyway? Syadasti has a tendancy to simply bash Apple products, but I'm not bashing them. Quite the opposite: I'm actually mildly irked that they priced this beautiful piece of hardware out of my range. So I'm saying that, for the simple option of a processor choice, they could have had people like me - the power users who want high end equipment.

The problem with your titus and apple example, is that the core of this machine, the processors, are much mroe than a fancy headset. They ARE the machine. So it's more like comparing an apple to the titus itself.

Some people need the power, that is what it comes down to. Those of you who don't sure seem bitter about it.
This was a DEVELOPER'S CONFERENCE. They released the machine they intend on having DEVELOPERS use. I am not sure why this is so hard for so many people to grasp? This wasn't a consumer show, no one really expected them to release any consumer products. It'd be like Dodge releasing a new supercar at the international truck and hunting show or something.

The lower end machine will probably show up in Paris. Then you can all stop complaining.

[Ridemonkey]

I agree with you in theory BV, however if Apple is doing well selling the higher end models, it may not make any sense for them to offer more models. It may be that the cost of developing addional models with lesser profit margins isn't prohibitive, and Apple may be better off just selling higher margin machines to a select audience.

The less powerful machines will likely draw a less professional user, and thus might be more expensive to support, warranty, etc. and in the long run the additional sales might just not be worth it.

Higher sales volume doesn't always equate to greater profit...and none of us have the metrics to judge whether a lesser model would be good for the company...even if it might arguably be better for you ;)

If it makes sense for them I'm sure you'll see one on the market soon.

[binary visions]

It may be that the cost of developing addional models with lesser profit margins isn't prohibitive, and Apple may be better off just selling higher margin machines to a select audience.

The less powerful machines will likely draw a less professional user, and thus might be more expensive to support, warranty, etc. and in the long run the additional sales might just not be worth it.
That's an excellent point (and, might I add, the only good one made so far - the rest of them have been equivalent to, "Apple can do no wrong, and their target market will pay for them" when that doesn't address my posts in the slightest).

They are selling less powerful machines, though, in the Mac Minis and iMacs.

Ahh well, we'll see what comes down the pipes from Apple.

[Ridemonkey]

I suppose I meant somewhere between an iMac and the Mac Pro...there's quite a gap.

I don't think anyone is arguing Apple can do no wrong...in general the argument is that there are people who need the extra processing power and prefer the Apple experience, and are willing to pay for it, and that doesn't make them stupid, or gullible as Syadasti would have you believe. To them it is worth it.

Syadasti's only concern seems to be finding the best deal on hardware, and hardware is only part of the equation.

[syadasti]

It seems the only Mac person with some knowledge about the difference between a Woodcrest Xeon and a Core 2 Duo system is Transcend - that is the typical differences between a workstation and regular PC

To put it in simple biking terms - it is the difference between a Specialized Enduro and an Sworks Enduro. Big deal the Sworks has a few M5 tubes which save you 1/4-1/2 lbs. The performance differences is not important for all but the highest level or special needs riders.

In more detail:

Xeon Workstation motherboard - usually has better power setup - say 8 phase and 8 layer motherboard, workstation chipset supports buffered (ECC) memory and requires different packaging on the CPU to support this - this translates to extra stability in less than ideal conditions

Prosumer motherboard - varying quality 3-8 phase power, 4-8 layer motherboard, may or may not support ECC memory

CPU - may have more cache which helps for certain types of computing tasks - more doesn't help in all situations. See the identical X2/Operton CPU for example a CPU with half the cache per core is only ONE speed ranking below a CPU - ie AMD X2 4200 - 512kb/core AMD X2 4400 - 1MB/core.

PSU - workstation usually need more power (not true these days with gamers running up to 4 videocards) and cleaner power (separate rails).

Anyhow it comes down to the fact you are probably paying around $1000 more than you need to - you could use that grand for more memory which would make a bigger difference for Photoshopers or other low-mid level workstation users.

These are facts and the real world differences. Don't talk about what you think you need if you don't even understand how they differ, do or do need fit your needs, and perform in the real world.

Its as annoying as listening to some newbie rider talking about if they upgraded this or that or had this frame it would make a huge difference in their riding...NOT

[Ridemonkey]

Yeah...we all get it...only high end users will benefit from the difference in technology...that's who the computer is designed for, and that's who will buy it...again...what's your point?

[syadasti]

Yeah...we all get it...only high end users will benefit from the difference in technology...that's who the computer is designed for, and that's who will buy it...again...what's your point?

Yeah I get. You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.

[spincrazy]

First post "Mac Pro
Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?"

Your first post was turning it into a debate. That aside, I wasn't directing my comments at you specifically BV, just saying.

Syadasti, no one cares - (You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.) See my post above. It's not about Gates vs Jobs nor marketing, what's better nor what's not. Paying as you say "1000s more" than need be is also moot as all of the things offered by everyone else do not come in this particular package. It costs what it costs. Is it exhorbinant? Yes, probably. Am I still getting one among the other millions? Mos Def.

[Silver]

Anyone look to see what Dell wants to upgrade a Precision 690 from 2GB to 4GB of 667Mhz ECC RAM?

Looks to me like they want an extra $820. :D

edit: A Dell workstation with same processors and 1GB of memory and a 250GB hard drive looks like it'll run you about $3200.

[Ridemonkey]

Yeah I get. You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.
You sit here all day and beat your geek chest spouting every stat you can recall from PC Magazine but you fail to ever make a coherent point.

Even in your one paragraph post you can't keep it together...you start by proposing that I don't know the difference between a workstation and a PC, then you trail off to the speed of G5s, then you move on to talking about marketing....the validity of these random statements aside, what do they have to do with BV's stance that Macs are overpriced?

I'm going to keep this short and simple so you don't get sidetracked again.

Non-Apple users always go off because they believe they can get equal performance from non-apple machines for less money. They are right. If this was 1998 they would have a very strong argument. But it's not. It's 2006 and the reason most people prefer Mac is not because they think it's the fastest machine on the market, but because they prefer OSX and all that it brings to the table, to the alternatives. Period.

If you could buy OSX and all mac software, and put it on any machine you wanted natively you would see a lot of Mac users running OSX on alternative hardware. But it's not, and until it is, people who prefer OSX will keep buying Apples regardless of any difference in price in hardware because it's worth it to them to be able to run the software.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

[syadasti]

First post "Mac Pro
Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?"

Your first post was turning it into a debate. That aside, I wasn't directing my comments at you specifically BV, just saying.

Syadasti, no one cares - (You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.) See my post above. It's not about Gates vs Jobs nor marketing, what's better nor what's not. Paying as you say "1000s more" than need be is also moot as all of the things offered by everyone else do not come in this particular package. It costs what it costs. Is it exhorbinant? Yes, probably. Am I still getting one among the other millions? Mos Def.


The real creative breakthrough one in million work is done on custom software and hardware setups. Hollywood also uses more exotic high-end hardware like SGI's - see ILM. The cutting edge often has custom developed software running in some flavor of *nix.

Macs are not the bleeding edge or high-end, never have been. NT stuff isn't the either.

Eyal Erez: I've worked on "The Aviator," "Christmas with the Kranks," "Spider-Man 2," "Hellboy," "The Matrix Revolutions," "Visitors," "Ghost Ship," "The One," "Smallville," "Angel," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and some music videos and commercials

...

Bell: What type of equipment/supplies do you utilize for special effects?

Erez: We use powerful pc's running on Linux. Most of our tools use parallel computers which speeds up things tremendously. Sometimes I'll have 40 computers working in parallel to render my images. We also use special light/camera rigs that capture data from actors for digital character replacement. We then take this data and generate a digital double of the actor, which we then animate into a shot in the film. We use it in many cases where a real stunt double can't make the performance needed.

Animal Logic (runs Red Hat)
The stunning special effects in the movies Moulin Rouge, The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded may be out of this world, but for post production company Animal Logic they are all part of its team's creative genius. To help realise its amazing visions, Sydney-based Animal Logic is progressively relying on Hewlett-Packard (HP) workstations as the platform for developing data intensive animation and special effects images.

For the wide variety of projects on their production slate during the next few years, the company is installing up to 100 HP xw6000 workstations running a range of sophisticated 2D and 3D software applications. They complement 20 HP x4000 workstations deployed in 2002. Teaming with HP reseller, Storm FX, Animal Logic chose HP for its price/performance, its broad range of technology offerings, proven development path and its commitment to the unique needs of a leading post-production house.

[Ridemonkey]

The real creative breakthrough one in million work is done on custom software and hardware setups. Hollywood also uses more exotic high-end hardware like SGI's - see ILM. The cutting edge often has custom developed software running in some flavor of *nix.

Macs are not the bleeding edge or high-end, never have been. NT stuff isn't the either.
What point are you addressing? That doesn't appear to fit in anywhere in this thread. More random facts to no end.

Here lemme try: I used a computer once that had a dirty mouse, it didn't track very well. My TV has picture-in-picture, it lets me watch two channels at once. I like ketchup on my Kraft Dinner for a little extra tang.

[syadasti]

...

The point is BV was right. A great number of users don't need the only current option for a high-end mac.

Apple would have sold much more if they offered stocked a second prosumer motherboard and a few Core 2 Duos for a thousand dollars less.

[syadasti]

What point are you addressing? That doesn't appear to fit in anywhere in this thread. More random facts to no end.

First post "Mac Pro
Just ordered one minutes after the keynote. Anyone else suffer through the interminable website running on molasses style delays?"

Your first post was turning it into a debate. That aside, I wasn't directing my comments at you specifically BV, just saying.

Syadasti, no one cares - (You don't have a f*cking clue about the difference between a workstation and PC. You believed the BS Jobs told you when he said the G5 was faster a short time ago. It wasn't and Jobs ate his words. Yet you still believe whatever the hell he tells you you need. Good job eating up that marketing you said you don't subscribe to.) See my post above. It's not about Gates vs Jobs nor marketing, what's better nor what's not. Paying as you say "1000s more" than need be is also moot as all of the things offered by everyone else do not come in this particular package. It costs what it costs. Is it exhorbinant? Yes, probably. Am I still getting one among the other millions? Mos Def.

I meant to quote this... (edited on prior page)

[Ridemonkey]

The point is BV was right. A great number of users don't need the only current option for a high-end mac.

Apple would have sold much more if they offered stocked a second prosumer motherboard and a few Core 2 Duos for a thousand dollars less.
Yeah...no one is disputing that. Welcome to 2 pages ago.

[Toshi]

What point are you addressing? That doesn't appear to fit in anywhere in this thread. More random facts to no end.

Here lemme try: I used a computer once that had a dirty mouse, it didn't track very well. My TV has picture-in-picture, it lets me watch two channels at once. I like ketchup on my Kraft Dinner for a little extra tang.
ahha :rofl:

[narlus]

as one who has never used OSX, what advantages does it bring to the average user that winXP doesn't?

[spincrazy]

The real creative breakthrough one in million work is done on custom software and hardware setups. Hollywood also uses more exotic high-end hardware like SGI's - see ILM. The cutting edge often has custom developed software running in some flavor of *nix.

Macs are not the bleeding edge or high-end, never have been. NT stuff isn't the either.

?And? How is that in reference to what I stated or what this 'debate' is about? This is a thread about a new Mac workstation. That's it. Are you next going to post all the specs of the hardware, software, etc. that NASA uses to make the shuttle launch? I'm sure it isn't run on a Mac either..

You make yourself a huge target with all your I hate Apple retoric and no one will take you seriously because we/they don't care how much you know, how much we do not know, etc. You don't like Apple. Why jump in every thread about them and spout nonsense? In addition, you bounce around like a coked up gerbil in a drug addicts asshole with your arguments.

[Toshi]

as one who has never used OSX, what advantages does it bring to the average user that winXP doesn't?
a) stable, no virus/malware to speak of
b) nice applications with sane user interfaces (apple and their developers are not fond of ugly grey dialog boxes and their human interface guidelines are well written)
c) things just work, for the most part. my parents use their iMacs to edit photos, video, post websites, for instance, and i had remarkably little to do with it!
d) elegant hardware -- i brought in my mac mini to make a presentation, and the guy helping set up the projector was all, "where's your computer?" (the mini is 6.5" x 6.5" x 2")

[spincrazy]

lack of viruses, stability, networking, media creation, and initial appeal right out of the box (stolen from an article) Brandon Watts -osweekly.com

[blue]

This thread makes my face hurt.

Okay...I just want an explanation.

Why is everyone still worshipping their Apples/Macs? To me, Apple is now just a PC company with their own operating system (after the switch to x86), which can be easily hacked to run on a non-Apple machine. Not only are they just a PC company now, but they're a ridiculously priced PC company (800 bones for a gig of RAM comes to mind).

So, why? Is it the packaging? The faux-liberal hipster trend that Apple reeks of? Solely the OS (Which doesn't seem like a valid argument, given the avenue of running it on a "standard" PC)? I mean, many people who swear by Mac/Apple are very technically knowledgeable, so it just doesn't make sense to me. Am I just too practical?

TRADITTIOOOOOON?
http://www.mgmuk.com/fiddlerontheroof/images/fiddler.jpg

[syadasti]

Non-Apple users always go off because they believe they can get equal performance from non-apple machines for less money. They are right. If this was 1998 they would have a very strong argument. But it's not. It's 2006 and the reason most people prefer Mac is not because they think it's the fastest machine on the market, but because they prefer OSX and all that it brings to the table, to the alternatives. Period.

If you could buy OSX and all mac software, and put it on any machine you wanted natively you would see a lot of Mac users running OSX on alternative hardware. But it's not, and until it is, people who prefer OSX will keep buying Apples regardless of any difference in price in hardware because it's worth it to them to be able to run the software.

This thread is about the Mac Pro - new hardware from Apple. Nobody has mentioned Leopard. Nobody has said Transcend should buy this/that OS or hardware instead. Its centered around why Apple is offering some high to mid-end hardware specs for low to mid-end workstation applications - both will give computing power in a similar league for most uses.

The fact is that PC and Macs run on the same hardware now, so hardware choices can be questioned since Apple can pick from the various Intel offerings right now - there are only small differences in the motherboards to separate them.

Transcend needed a desktop and he had a good EDU discount and some money to play with as a individual - thats ok. But Apple is in business to move product and make a profit - spec the mid-low end workstation appropriately makes a lot more sense to hit the sweet spot.

As for the others saying they are going to run out and buy this or its perfectly fine for professional useage right now, its not. In the business world (any business, not just corporate), this product would not be sound move for a organization. Buying brand new hardware architecture (for apple) and software product with millions of lines ported code and lack of many third party apps/drivers with proper ports would just never fly as smart move. Just as many corporate users stayed on one platform - say 98 or 2000 for years after XP was out, so did many creative professionals stick with OS 9 and legacy apps for years. Any firm with G5s will sit on their mature PPC code, more mature OSX PPC and mature hardware for a year or two (or some cases more) until the Intel product is ripe for professional applications - early adoption=punishment - unpolished hardware, software, less options, and higher prices. Leave the beta testing to the lower end users when the bottom line is the bottom line.

[spincrazy]

correct, but bless Transcend for buying now so they can get the bugs out and lower the price

Similar/same hardware yes. Tech no. The good part of Apple keeping their technology is that the quality and integrity of the product has remained high. We can't say that about the PC. The rest of your comments however are duely noted.

[syadasti]

correct, but bless Transcend for buying now so they can get the bugs out and lower the price

Similar/same hardware yes. Tech no. The good part of Apple keeping their technology is that the quality and integrity of the product has remained high. We can't say that about the PC. The rest of your comments however are duely noted.

You mean software, there are no significant differences otherwise when spec'd the same hardware-wise (yeah there are 100s of PC makers so quality varies tremendously if you don't know how to choose a good brand and decent product line/spec to buy - Apple's reasoning for stopping clones years ago). As far as best mainstream OS product mix of UI and software technology, then yes, OSX.

[narlus]

lack of viruses,

i've never have had a virus attack in 10 years or so of running MS machines.

stability,

ah...blue screens can suck. have had one major issue which forced a re-install and hardware upgrade (router needed configuring, and i loaded a driver which was written for '98 not xp...bad things. also, i've had strange behaviour w/ my CF card reader from time to time, so after i use it i remove it).

networking,

uh, i gotta say MS isn't the easiest to network, but it's not like it doesn't work once you get it going.

media creation,

what does this mean?

and initial appeal right out of the box (stolen from an article) Brandon Watts -osweekly.com

we're talking software, not hardware, right?

[Transcend]

This thread makes my face hurt.

Okay...I just want an explanation.

Why is everyone still worshipping their Apples/Macs? To me, Apple is now just a PC company with their own operating system (after the switch to x86), which can be easily hacked to run on a non-Apple machine. Not only are they just a PC company now, but they're a ridiculously priced PC company (800 bones for a gig of RAM comes to mind).

So, why? Is it the packaging? The faux-liberal hipster trend that Apple reeks of? Solely the OS (Which doesn't seem like a valid argument, given the avenue of running it on a "standard" PC)? I mean, many people who swear by Mac/Apple are very technically knowledgeable, so it just doesn't make sense to me. Am I just too practical?

TRADITTIOOOOOON?
http://www.mgmuk.com/fiddlerontheroof/images/fiddler.jpg

Congratulations on showing your ignorance. You win today's stupid award!

Read the thread before you post anymore, specifically with regards to overpriced etc.

[blue]

Congratulations on not explaining jack **** and being an asshat to boot?

I'm curious. I want to know if the Apple-luv is more than N8 loving the GOP, but clearly, with responses like the above, it's the latter.

[Transcend]

Come into a thread and start posting stupid, ignorant comments, and you are sure to get stupid answers.

[blue]

Come into a thread and start posting stupid, ignorant comments, and you are sure to get stupid answers.

Or perhaps cutting through the stupid posturing by the Mac lovers and the Mac haters is too much for you?

It's fact that Apples and the rest of the PC world are on a level playing field technically. So why do you like them so much?

But wait, Fraser has defaulted to being an asshat to anyone who remotely questions the reasoning behind his posts.

Typical.

[Transcend]

Or perhaps cutting through the stupid posturing by the Mac lovers and the Mac haters is too much for you?

It's fact that Apples and the rest of the PC world are on a level playing field technically. So why do you like them so much?

But wait, Fraser has defaulted to being an asshat to anyone who remotely questions the reasoning behind his posts.

Typical.

Actually, what's typical is your assinine posts in a thread that lead to you bitching and whining that no one is nice to you.

[Ridemonkey]

This thread is about the Mac Pro - new hardware from Apple. Nobody has mentioned Leopard. Nobody has said Transcend should buy this/that OS or hardware instead. Its centered around why Apple is offering some high to mid-end hardware specs for low to mid-end workstation applications - both will give computing power in a similar league for most uses.


Yes, it was about the Mac Pro for about one post until it was turned into another "Apples are over-priced thread", and that's been a part of the discussion since.


The fact is that PC and Macs run on the same hardware now, so hardware choices can be questioned since Apple can pick from the various Intel offerings right now - there are only small differences in the motherboards to separate them.

Agreed.


As for the others saying they are going to run out and buy this or its perfectly fine for professional useage right now, its not. In the business world (any business, not just corporate), this product would not be sound move for a organization. Buying brand new hardware architecture (for apple) and software product with millions of lines ported code and lack of many third party apps/drivers with proper ports would just never fly as smart move. Just as many corporate users stayed on one platform - say 98 or 2000 for years after XP was out, so did many creative professionals stick with OS 9 and legacy apps for years. Any firm with G5s will sit on their mature PPC code, more mature OSX PPC and mature hardware for a year or two (or some cases more) until the Intel product is ripe for professional applications - early adoption=punishment - unpolished hardware, software, less options, and higher prices. Leave the beta testing to the lower end users when the bottom line is the bottom line.

You're mixing the requirements of single professionals with that of larger companies. Does it make sense for a large company to adopt new, relatively untested technology in great volume? Of course not.

However, an individual professional(Transcend) can adopt that same technology at a much lesser risk because it need only work for him and his workflow...not that of a whole organization.

I will reiterate my central point here so it's not overlooked: You can not compare what is good for big business to what is good for individual professionals. The negative aspects of early adoption have far less impact on individuals than they would on a large company, while the positive aspects remain the same.

[Ridemonkey]

Or perhaps cutting through the stupid posturing by the Mac lovers and the Mac haters is too much for you?

It's fact that Apples and the rest of the PC world are on a level playing field technically. So why do you like them so much?

But wait, Fraser has defaulted to being an asshat to anyone who remotely questions the reasoning behind his posts.

Typical.
Through out all these conversations you'll find a common thread. Mac users like macs because it what works best for them. PC zealots can't be satisfied letting Mac users have a preference, and feel they need to find ways to try make Mac users feel bad about their choice.

You will never see someone attacked by a Mac user for preferring PCs though...why? We can respect "choice". It's a concept you PC freaks don't seem to understand.

If you want to know why we like them so much read the damn thread.

[Silver]

It's fact that Apples and the rest of the PC world are on a level playing field technically. So why do you like them so much?


The software.

Macs have in the last 10 years been behind PCs from a brute force standpoint. Now they are caught up.

My next computer is going to be a Mac. I'm at the point where I want to plug the goddamned thing in and have it go. The days where I thought it was fun to fiddle with putting the machine together and then getting it running just the way I like it over the course of a week are long gone.

By the way, Dell wants $820 for the same RAM upgrade that Apple wants. Call it the stupid tax for people who can't install RAM or unzip their pants...but it looks like Apple is the only one that bends you over for it.

[blue]

But if the software/OS can run on a PC...

I'm tempted to pickup a bigger HDD to run a dual boot machine with OSX, as I like it. A lot.

[Transcend]

Those of us who make our livings working on computers all day (which is a huge part of the apple userbase) do not have the option of stealing software and breaking EULAs.

[blue]

Those of us who make our livings working on computers all day (which is a huge part of the apple userbase) do not have the option of stealing software and breaking EULAs.

Does the EULA specifically state you have to run your copy of OSX on an Apple machine? I'd think it did, but jw.

So, you're saying Apple has coralled a portion of the market with ****ty EULAs and proprietary policies...smells like Sony/MS.

[Transcend]

Does the EULA specifically state you have to run your copy of OSX on an Apple machine? I'd think it did, but jw.

So, you're saying Apple has coralled a portion of the market with ****ty EULAs and proprietary policies...smells like Sony/MS.

Apple has ALWAYS had it's software run only on specific machines. This is how they achienved their near legendary stability. They can easily test every configuration of machine you can buy and make sure the OS and their pro apps are rock solid on it. MS cannot do this as you could potentially use one of a zillion Mobos or processors or vid cards. This is what leads to windows ****ting the bed 3/4 of the time. The drivers suck, or the dlls for one thing conflict with another etc etc.

When Gil Amelio left in 1997 and Jobs took over, he killed the clone industry as well as the precursor to os x (Rhapsody) that would run on both PC and mac hardware. The clone industry was absolutely DESTROYING their profits. That was the end of mac os running on any hardware you coudl install it on.

Apple is now using EFI and trusted computing (TPM) chips to make sure that you run their software only on their approved machines. This is why you have to crack it to run on standard x86 hardware. The EULA just reinforces this and states that is must only be used on apple approved hardware.

They sell the OS for $130, MS sells the os for about $400 (both retail and pro MS version as apple has no crippled version). They clearly make their 25% margin off of the hardware. This is their business model and it works quite well for them.

[syadasti]

Yes, it was about the Mac Pro for about one post until it was turned into another "Apples are over-priced thread", and that's been a part of the discussion since.

It was about Apple's Mac Pro product mix choice for the target market, the pricing is competitive now other than the upgrade fees (which Transcend acknowledged were ludicrous). The only thing that was fishy at the show was comparing a Dell with a higher spec Intel workstation motherboard and nvidia workstation videocard to the Mac Pro with the entry level $80 nvidia consumer videocard.

You're mixing the requirements of single professionals with that of larger companies. Does it make sense for a large company to adopt new, relatively untested technology in great volume? Of course not.

However, an individual professional(Transcend) can adopt that same technology at a much lesser risk because it need only work for him and his workflow...not that of a whole organization.

I will reiterate my central point here so it's not overlooked: You can not compare what is good for big business to what is good for individual professionals. The negative aspects of early adoption have far less impact on individuals than they would on a large company, while the positive aspects remain the same.

On the contrary - with an individual professional a single expensive point of failure means sink or swim if it dies and you are out of action for a few weeks due to expensive special order parts or limited data recovery requirements. Even with mature Apple products, people almost always buy the extended Applecare warranties with their machines.

Large companies might buy a few samples of the new product early to have some users test out the new product until its mature enough to go into production for the whole company.

Apple has a notorious history for first and even sometimes second generation hardware launches. For professional users, their primary third party application productivity is much more important than a new revision of an OS or a speed bump that doesn't give much benefit for their unported or non-optimized app (which will change as the product becomes mature enough for professional use). Also they might have expensive hardware which isn't yet supported under the new environment - they can't afford an upgrade that also requires them to buy other new hardware.

[narlus]

They sell the OS for $130, MS sells the os for about $400 (both retail and pro MS version as apple has no crippled version). They clearly make their 25% margin off of the hardware. This is their business model and it works quite well for them.

i'd bet the majority of their revenue and profit growth was fueled by the iPod, and not iBooks or G4/5 machines. now that that field is getting increasingly cluttered, and the RIAA labels grousing about iTunes, they'd probably better think out their next strategy.

if any existing officers can outlast the stock option backdating scandal.

[Silver]

But if the software/OS can run on a PC...



You missed the part about me wanting to just plug in the power and have it work, right?

[syadasti]

You missed the part about me wanting to just plug in the power and have it work, right?

Which is a fairy tale in reality. Its a computer and they don't always work right.

Dave Weagle engineer and cofounder evil bikes/e13 components on his wife's Mac, it just works, eh:


Mac's suck balls. When will they go away? All I know is that the titanium laptop I bought for my wife was/is a huge turd waste of my money.

[Ridemonkey]

Which is a fairy tale in reality. Its a computer and they don't always work right.

Dave Weagle engineer and cofounder evil bikes/e13 components on his wife's Mac, it just works, eh:
You dismiss our anecdotal evidence, then use some else's to support your stance...classic.

[syadasti]

You dismiss our anecdotal evidence, then use some else's to support your stance...classic.

No I've used hundreds of different individual Macs and spent thousands of hours using Macs personally over the years. I've also used thousands of different individual PCs and Sun computers.

Nobody seemed to care, so it was an example that came to mind.

A mac is just another kind of computer and it doesn't always work in various situations. That is the reality.

[Ridemonkey]

No I've used hundreds of different individual Macs and spent thousands of hours using Macs personally over the years. I've also used thousands of different individual PCs and Sun computers.

Nobody seemed to care, so it was an example that came to mind.

A mac is just another kinda of computer and it doesn't always work in various situations. That is the reality.
Yeah...I'm not terribly interested in your personal experience, since you've demonstrated quite aptly that objectivity is beyond your capacity.

[Silver]

Which is a fairy tale in reality. Its a computer and they don't always work right.

Dave Weagle engineer and cofounder evil bikes/e13 components on his wife's Mac, it just works, eh:

And in reality a Honda is going to be a more reliable car than a Pontiac.

However, there are people who get great Pontiacs and lemon Hondas. Imagine that...

Did Steve Jobs rape your sister or something? You must be a ton of fun to be with when an Apple commerical comes up in rotation on television.

[syadasti]

Yeah...I'm not terribly interested in your personal experience, since you've demonstrated quite aptly that objectivity is beyond your capacity.

Apple products have problems just like any other computer maker does - hardware and software. Why are there Apple specific technical support organizations? Why do they have support staff for companies that use Apple. Or a Apple's very extensive knowledge base and support site:

http://www.apple.com/support/

Thats right, its a computer and it doesn't always work. Thats reality. Its not a magic box, its a computer - get real.

[Ridemonkey]

Apple products have problems just like any other computer maker does - hardware and software. Why are there Apple specific technical support organizations? Why do they have support staff for companies that use Apple. Or a Apple's very extensive knowledge base and support site:

http://www.apple.com/support/

Thats right, its a computer and it doesn't always work. Thats reality. Its not a magic box, its a computer - get real.
When did I ever say that they never ever break? In fact...I said that mine had a hard drive failure. Silver just summed things up nicely.

[syadasti]

And in reality a Honda is going to be a more reliable car than a Pontiac.

Invalid comparison today and I don't watch TV.

Same hardware today. OS, well there are other *nix kernels that give better performance. Only feature Apple excels above the rest is superior UI.

BTW, Apple is making Intel Darwin kernel open source finally (http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2437095928.html).

[Transcend]

Which is a fairy tale in reality. Its a computer and they don't always work right.


"Always" isn't the key. Th eonly certain things in life are death and taxes.

The fact that they work much more often than their pc competition is, however, the key. I plug it in, it works. Much as I will be doing with my pro when it arrives.

edit: and how the hell is that an invalid comparison? It's a perfectly valid one, you just don't like how it accurately reflects the state of things. Yes, your windows boxes are busted ass, gas guzzling, pontiacs. :D

[binary visions]

This is a terrible thread :rolleyes:

I'm embarassed to have started the discussion. In my defense, I was only trying to suggest that Apple could expand their market share by offering some pricing options, not start yet another flamefest on Macs vs. PCs.

Maybe I should just start locking any Mac-related thread immediately after posting :p

[Transcend]

Why not, Syadasti does.

[Ridemonkey]

This is a terrible thread :rolleyes:

I'm embarassed to have started the discussion. In my defense, I was only trying to suggest that Apple could expand their market share by offering some pricing options, not start yet another flamefest on Macs vs. PCs.

Maybe I should just start locking any Mac-related thread immediately after posting :p
Your position was completely legitimate, it was our resident close-minded PC nazi that saw it as an opportunity to ramble on about his PC agenda (hehe).

[binary visions]

Okay, let's just let this eyesore sink to the bottom, shall we?

Enjoy your new Mac Pro, Transcend... It'd be awesome if you tossed up a few pictures when you get it. Especially if you pull it apart to add some RAM :thumb: