651–660 of 731 posts
(They made it functional of course, with the holes used for cooling etc, but the 100% cheese grater look was intended this time).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multimedia professionals do not store their data in internal/primary drives. They generally have RAID boxes with either Ethernet or thunderbolt connection. Most video editing/rendering is done on big storage arrays anyway. So 256GB storage is more than enough for most serious multimedia professionals.
I'm not entirely sure my Lightroom cache would fit on this drive...
Besides, perhaps you're the user that needs the multi-TB version. Others, e.g. video professionals wont have huge tens-of-TB source files in their main system drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multimedia professionals do not store their data in internal/primary drives. They generally have RAID boxes with either Ethernet or thunderbolt connection. Most video editing/rendering is done on big storage arrays anyway. So 256GB storage is more than enough for most serious multimedia professionals.
I'm not entirely sure my Lightroom cache would fit on this drive...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> enterprise dlink switches "enterprise" DLink switches aren't really a thing yet, regardless of what their marketing team wants to brand them as. :( Cisco, HPE, etc have "enterprise" switches. DLink might be in a decade. > it is hard to saturate a 10gbe connection with a single NAS, unless it is packed with SSDs No, it's just a matter of having enough spindles behind it. As a rough guide, with a (say) average spinni…
I would defer to people with more enterprise hardware experience than me for serious NAS set ups, but my experience with various generations of 12 disks synology nas is that you loose a lot of performance to disk vibrations / inefficiencies of the raid implementation / sync between drives / tcp, etc. So I don't think it scales linearly. With a synology DS3615 and 12 HGST Helium drives in RAID5, I barely get over 1GB/…
Went with FreeNAS instead, as I was already very familiar with building systems, it's based on FreeBSD (OSS), and it gives better tuning on the higher end.
Doesn't have as pretty a GUI though. ;)
The thing the Mac Pro does is magically make the price of every other computer look that much better. $6000 for a computer? Johnson, that's insane. What about $4999 for an iMac Pro? It comes with a display. Great, order it! What about $2499 for a Mac Mini with 32GB and 1TB SSD? Great, order it! What about $2499 for a Macbook Pro? Great, order it!
The 1987 Mac II released at $5,498, $12,125 adjusted for inflation. Granted, that included a monitor. IMO these things are designed for companies like Pixar, Disney, and aerospace, the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" world.
For companies the cost of computers next to the cost of people is insignificant, and that is the target customer group for this machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is great that they have a real high-end product. But in the past, at least the starting price of the Mac Pro was in enthusiast-range. There should be a product between the Mini and the Pro which supports a desktop graphics card.
On that, we agree. I write code, and I used to own a 2008 "cheese-grater" Mac Pro. That one was affordable enough for developers, came with a low-end video card (which was fine!), supported lots of RAM, and provided a rock-stable machine for development. The new one, not so much, it seems to be mostly good for specialized applications (like video editing). But on the other hand, I don't think I'd want to buy this Mac…
- disk space, I need more disk space and have no good solution for that
- I would like to have a real graphics card, StarCraft even struggles in 1920x1080 resolution.
Even the iMac Pro doesn't really solve either of that, at already a too high price. I would have been willing to spend like 6k on a basic Mac Pro with a display, which wouldn't sound impossible considering that in older times the Mac Pro started well below 3k, but the new one is in an entirely different league. I am not sure why Apple thinks that "Pro" users are a synonym for video makers. There are photographers, there are software developers and many more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 200 gb/s network adapter that you linked are 4 times slower than 100GB/s. The parent comment wrote explicitly 100 Gbyte/s.
Oops. Didn't spot that, sorry. :) That being said, after re-reading the comment they're talking about adding multiple PCIe cards to a box to achieve 100GB/s of local total throughput. That would be achievable over a network by adding multiple PCIe 200Gb/s network cards too. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new Mac Pro, like Mac Pros always have been, is for music/TV studios and design agencies that bill their time starting at $500/hour. It's really not for individuals, and that's ok. Apple made a computer "just for the pros", like HN begs for in every butterfly keyboard thread. I'm thrilled about it even though I know I'll never touch one. It's for people who don't know what a CPU core is but know how to produce a…
That was basically my takeaway as well. Writing/compiling code just isn't "pro" anymore — doesn't require pro hardware. The new Mac Pro is meant for professional studios . And to think music studios need so much horsepower when "Sgt. Pepper's" was recorded on 4 tracks…
Estimates are > 700 hours for the album; 700/13 = more than 50 hours per track. A lot of that time was bouncing down 4 tracks to smaller numbers for future takes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AMD ecosystem will always remain behind if application developers continue to choose single-vendor proprietary frameworks rather than standard APIs.
This is an odd complaint considering the Metal requirement on MacOS.