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

431–440 of 571 posts

Re: Mac Pro

#431

Post by Glyptodon »

wisty wrote: post #417

OK, so it's not a Mac Pro. It's a Mac Mini Pro. As long as it's not too expensive, it's exactly what a lot of prosumers might want (especially those who want to ditch their laptops for iPads and iPhones, and maybe a MBA for the road- a lot of people's MacBook Pros live on their desks). I can't see a serious video editor wanting one, but they're all jumping ship to get cheaper Wintel workstations (and at some point, s…

I can't see any way a 'prosumer' will be able to afford it considering what's going inside. I think these things are going to run $3000+, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm mis-defining 'prosumer.'

Re: Mac Pro

#432

Post by seanp2k2 »

kanzure wrote: post #406
fourstar wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting minified JS is pretty useless. Open up Chrome inspector tools and use pretty print to actually read it: http://i.imgur.com/PHUaDSU.png

Why would you post a screenshot of source code? I don't understand.

[he was demonstrating how it looks when you "Open up Chrome inspector tools and use pretty print to actually read it" ]

Re: Mac Pro

#433

Post by jarek »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #364
makomk wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that a lot of people bought the Mac Pro despite the fact that it has Xeon processors, rather than because of it. They're a lot more expensive without a huge performance benefit for desktop or workstation applications. The main advantages of Xeon were dual-socket support and support for oodles of RAM slots, and the new Mac Pro supports neither of these things.

I think you’re omitting the Xeon’s increased stability versus consumer grade architectures. Many Mac Pros are used to run non-stop, they need to be more dependable than other computers.

Does this really matter in 2013? Serious question. I could see ECC having been useful in 2000 in the midst of the megahertz race, but I'm not too convinced about today...

Re: Mac Pro

#434

Post by seanp2k2 »

Glyptodon wrote: post #431
wisty wrote: post #417

OK, so it's not a Mac Pro. It's a Mac Mini Pro. As long as it's not too expensive, it's exactly what a lot of prosumers might want (especially those who want to ditch their laptops for iPads and iPhones, and maybe a MBA for the road- a lot of people's MacBook Pros live on their desks). I can't see a serious video editor wanting one, but they're all jumping ship to get cheaper Wintel workstations (and at some point, s…

I can't see any way a 'prosumer' will be able to afford it considering what's going inside. I think these things are going to run $3000+, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I'm mis-defining 'prosumer.'

Dual FirePro cards, mini PCI-E SSD, and up to a 12-core [single] CPU? I feel like this will start north of $3500, but they might have a cheaper base config. Maxed, it'll probably top $5k.

Re: Mac Pro

#435

Post by digitalengineer »

wisty wrote: post #417

OK, so it's not a Mac Pro. It's a Mac Mini Pro. As long as it's not too expensive, it's exactly what a lot of prosumers might want (especially those who want to ditch their laptops for iPads and iPhones, and maybe a MBA for the road- a lot of people's MacBook Pros live on their desks). I can't see a serious video editor wanting one, but they're all jumping ship to get cheaper Wintel workstations (and at some point, s…

How about the entire graphic design industry? Finally a 'headless iMac' with balls. The MacPro allows me to attach my EIZO monitors. The iMac screens are consumer-quality, really. If you're looking for high quality screens (and OSX), the MacPro is the best. I am curious about the price-range.

Re: Mac Pro

#436

Post by [deleted] »

stormbrew wrote: post #294
astrodust wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea here is any video card you might want you can just plug in to a Thunderbolt 2 port. Six of those, which can be chained, is way better than having four internal slots.

So on top of the almost-certainly really expensive Mac Pro, you now also need to get the really expensive PCIe expansion enclosure on top of it? Or did I miss nvidia or ati making thunderbolt video cards? This is why the idea that this makes sense for professional users is silly. It's just asking them to spend a lot more money for something that's been possible with standard case designs for decades. The old Mac Pro…

[deleted]

Re: Mac Pro

#437

Post by seanp2k2 »

comex wrote: post #424
WiseWeasel wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PCIe 4.0 is double the bandwidth of PCIe 3.0, which is about 1 GB/s per lane, or 16 GB/s for PCIe 3.0 x16. PCIe 4.0 x4 would be ~8 GB/s, and x16 would be 32 GB/s. Unfortunately, the spec won't be finalized for another couple years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express#PCI_Express_4.0

> PCIe 4.0 x4 would be ~8 GB/s That's what I said, 64 Gbps. :)

I feel like Apple is betting the farm on Thunderbolt being the future, and I don't see that future materializing. How many Thunderbolt peripherals have y'all even seen in real life that weren't the Apple external monitor or a mini displayport display adapter? I feel like this is even less prevalent than Firewire was back in the 1394 glory days (it was/still is an excellent bus for running audio, due in no small part to the fact that it's not USB; separate controller, doesn't crash if your USB bus gets wonky, etc.).

Re: Mac Pro

#438

Post by seanp2k2 »

dman wrote: post #258
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…

Or you could buy a HP Z820 with liquid cooling, dual xeon processor, a fusion io card, three workstation gpus, and 12 sata drives :)

(it's probably cheaper too, but you'll still have a huge "ugly" "old" box [sitting under your desk where it won't matter anyway])

I'm still glad Apple made this, but I feel like it might miss their target market a bit. It does fit with their strategy of "disposable devices" though; you'll be buying a new one if you want to upgrade.

Re: Mac Pro

#439

Post by seanp2k2 »

rsync wrote: post #384
snuze wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" ?

Here is the first Google result for "OSX guest VM in windows": http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/08/how-to-run-mac-os-x-on-...

You'll also want to look up "osx86" and read up on that. TL;DR it's stable in my experience if you don't need to upgrade the OS. If you do want OS upgrades, even minor ones, it's going to be somewhat painful. While I've had VERY good results (my Kalyway OSX was more stable than a real MBP running Snow Leopard), YMMV.

Based on your comments, it wouldn't be an ideal solution for you.

-LazyWeb

Re: Mac Pro

#440

Post by sgt »

Due to the shape of it, the power contained within its walls... Yes, I'd be very tempted to set the hostname to 'zpm'.
Post reply on HN