Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mac Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 571 posts

Re: Mac Pro

#381

Post by elboru »

OSWJimlo wrote: post #378
spydum wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised how bad it works in landscape orientation on their own ipad devices.. Alignment is wrong, scrolling is not smooth.. Overall, just bad. I could understand if I was browsing from an android platform..

What the hell is wrong with you? The 'if it were android' bit just shows how completely Apple has made us expect the web to not be open. The whole fucking point of web standards is that it doesn't matter what you browse from - if they were conformed to. But no, apple violates them every which way (and gets praised for not being the shittastic company it is to boot) and fucktards like you just accept that 'sure, apple…

Dude, I really think you're in the wrong site, for a moment I thought I was reading a YouTube comment.

Re: Mac Pro

#382

Post by vacri »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #363
vacri wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A USB jack can fit into an RJ45. Still, there is something of a problem in that sometimes people plug things in while the power is off, and computers are often kept tucked away in dim corners. Looking at the machine from an angle, it's not always obvious which connectors are where, especially if you're not a techy who could name ports in their sleep.

That sounds like a plea for LED illuminated ports... like the Mac Pro will have.

How do you get that plea from "sometimes... the power is off"?

Re: Mac Pro

#383

Post by kevinpet »

rsync wrote: post #256

I love this new device. I suspect I will buy one. But it doesn't solve my "need a new mac pro" problem. Right now my 2009 octo mac pro, with six displays attached, plays three roles: - it is my high end desktop workstation, with three primary high resolution (2560x1600) displays. - it is my HTPC, with one of the six monitors strung into another room entirely. - it is my office NAS, with four internal 3TB disks So, th…

I think that the whole notion of "it's nice to know I could upgrade" is primarily a consequence of what's currently in the system. Consider the next upgrade.

You buy this thing in 2013. For bulk storage, you hook up a usb 3.0 raid array and a cheap usb dvd drive. A couple years later, you decide you need more fast storage, so you add on a 512GB / 4 TB thunderbolt fusion drive box (note: this product doesn't exist today). Next year, you upgrade the USB raid array to thunderbolt and decide you want an external cinema quality 4k / THX video converter, that also connects over thunderbolt.

Then in 2016, you conclude that the 24 core macbook pro is sufficient for your day to day, and hook up your bulk storage to that when you're home, but leave the cinema converter and the old usb raid array hooked up as your htpc.

Incidentally, to address your specific scenario, I'm pretty sure that an Apple TV costs less than your gt120 did.

In other words, you doubled down on the tail end of one way of doing things, and little of that will carry over to the new standards. It's the same situation many people were in with AGP graphics cards, IDE hard drives and ATX power supplies without the additional 12v connector.

Re: Mac Pro

#384

Post by rsync »

snuze wrote: post #351
ScottBurson wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure I've seen people run OS X as a vmWare guest on either Windows or Linux.

Yup, I've run OSX as a vmWare guest on Windows. It's possible and it works.

OK, but...

- how much initial wizardry is required

- how often does it need to be updated, or tended to ... is it like a hackintosh where you need to muck around with it every month or so because something "breaks" ?

Re: Mac Pro

#385

Post by rurounijones »

potatolicious wrote: post #48
speeder wrote: post #30

Is someone seeing something more on this page than me? I am using a the Rockmelt browser on a Mac Mini, and I am seeing only the trashcan thing... The page has some secret trick or something to have more info???

Doesn't seem to work on some browsers. Not on the latest Firefox but works on Chrome and Safari.

Yea that is pretty crappy.

In their defence though, the page works perfectly with JS disabled if you just want the info.

Re: Mac Pro

#386

Post by rickmode »

michaelwww wrote: post #320
rickmode wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this looks like an example of Apple's craftsmanship in depth where quality and elegance can be seen at multiple levels, from the case to the internal hardware to the OS and its APIs. Certainly one can find flaws, but compared to a typical Windows machine Apple has more craftsmanship (in my opinion). Windows exhibits more of the "just get it done" utilitarian idea.

It amazes me that people are willing to pay twice as much for the fluff. I'm not convinced Apple Mac OS is twice as good as any other OS.

You may have a point. I did say "in my opinion". ;)

I'm could be jaded from working on Windows apps too long. (I worked on Windows stuff from the 3.1 era through to Windows 2000.)

Re: Mac Pro

#387

Post by rsync »

kevinpet wrote: post #383
rsync wrote: post #256

I love this new device. I suspect I will buy one. But it doesn't solve my "need a new mac pro" problem. Right now my 2009 octo mac pro, with six displays attached, plays three roles: - it is my high end desktop workstation, with three primary high resolution (2560x1600) displays. - it is my HTPC, with one of the six monitors strung into another room entirely. - it is my office NAS, with four internal 3TB disks So, th…

I think that the whole notion of "it's nice to know I could upgrade" is primarily a consequence of what's currently in the system. Consider the next upgrade. You buy this thing in 2013. For bulk storage, you hook up a usb 3.0 raid array and a cheap usb dvd drive. A couple years later, you decide you need more fast storage, so you add on a 512GB / 4 TB thunderbolt fusion drive box (note: this product doesn't exist tod…

I definitely see what you are saying, and that is why I do think it is a very impressive and very cool computer.

But a lot of the value for me was the one device. A single, unix based[1] device that did everything from be my htpc to be my fileserver to be my desktop, music player, build box, run all my vms, etc.

I derived a lot of value from that. Even if the second device is an apple TV, it's still a second device.

Also, diverging a bit, a lot of folks are talking about a lot of video based expandability via the thunderbolt ports, but remember - it's not even as fast as 4x pcie ... 10mb/s over copper vs. 120 mb/s ... if I have my numbers right.

Re: Mac Pro

#388

Post by kevinpet »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #335

It's disturbing to see so many people drooling over this hardware. Granted, it's tasty-looking, but: - http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple - http://www.ifixit.com/blog/2011/01/20/apples-diabolical-plan... - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2337939,00.asp Give some thought to the above before buying an Apple device, please.

Do you really think HN readers are so uninformed that they are not aware of the tradeoffs in Apple hardware? They are tradeoffs, not evil conspiracies.

Re: Mac Pro

#389

Post by rsync »

thejosh wrote: post #354
ScottBurson wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure I've seen people run OS X as a vmWare guest on either Windows or Linux.

You can get VMWare Workstation to run Mountain Lion if you have Intel hardware. It's a bit harder for other hardware. It ran pretty well last time I ran it, good enough for iOS testing.

Hmmm... does that mean that you can then run the other OSX vms (SL Server, Lion) inside of the Mountain Lion vm ? Like:

(((SL Server vm) vmware fusion on ML) Linux on Intel)

Re: Mac Pro

#390

Post by rorrr2 »

mbell wrote: post #343
bingaling wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not 32gb dimms? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226...

The linked dimms have 43% lower bandwidth than what Apple has specced (PC1866 vs PC1066) and are over twice the $ per GB.

I can't think of a single app that's RAM-speed-bound.

Pretty much everything is CPU- or GPU- or disk-bound.

Post reply on HN