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

481–490 of 571 posts

Re: Mac Pro

#481

Post by sneak »

jarek wrote: post #443
sneak wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fail a component and its off to the shop. Oh, so it's exactly like the laptop, tablet, and phone you have now. Gotcha.

I dunno what laptop you're using - the screen failed on mine and I replaced it on my floor, not even a fancy workstation.

MacBookAir4,2 and MacBookPro10,1.

I buy AppleCare and leave the screwdrivers to the Genius Bar. They have copies of them on all of the continents I travel between; I frequently do not.

Furthermore, who wants to be in the laptop repair business? I push bits. For a few hundred bucks they'll fix anything that breaks and I can stop being the Maytag Man and get on with life.

Re: Mac Pro

#482

Post by meerita »

voltagex_ wrote: post #237
meerita wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the era where you process all in the cloud. You don't need 30 HD on your machine anymore or 200gb ram. I was a bit shocked at the beginning but then I realized most of the studios are using cloud solutions to make intensive renders or local hardware farms with plenty of processing power. I think the Mac Pro still exceeds on power, but you know you will always find someone else more hungry of power :)

Heh, I bet you're somewhere with high bandwidth, no data caps and very low latency. Here, I'm 30-60ms away from the big datacentres, and 200-400ms away from the US. Data is capped at ~500gb per month on the high end plans, and that's both upload and download. I'm lucky to get 10 megabits down, 1 megabit up on a good day. Coupled with the fact our country's going to head back to the 1950s with the inevitable change of…

Most of the people I know they didn't updagraded their Mac Pros ever in 3 to 6 years of use. I heard people upgrading memory, replacing discs, but the rest it should be intact. The Mac Pro is a nice machine for people who won't upgrade in 3 o 4 years, even more and still having power.

If they didn't release this, I would continue with the idea of making my Hackintosh but this new baby is nice.

Re: Mac Pro

#483

Post by koralatov »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #144

As a design asthetic I find it fairly interesting. By working toward a design managing the thermals in a way that allow for more heat removal while allowing it to not sound like a 747 on takeoff is good. I suspect your typical desktop machine will benefit from that kind of thinking. Also for a long time Intel was trying to push all of the expansion boards outside the case with USB, and Apple seems close to achieving…

In the ways the heat management is designed, it reminds me of the oft-maligned G4 Cube, which used the same components around the edges, airflow through the centre idea to cool the machine. The small size of the unit also reinforces the similarity for me.

Re: Mac Pro

#484

Post by bestham »

dan1234 wrote: post #454
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…

The displays don't actually run over thunderbolt, they just share the (mini displayport) connector so there's no need to worry about losing bandwidth.

That is not entirely accurate, the DP signal can be embedded in a TB stream (like on the Apple TB Display, where the actual signal in the TB cable is TB data) but a TB device can demux the DP data and output DP data in the DP/TB connector. The DP data actually uses pars of the total available bandwidth with Thunderbolt 2 since there is no dedicated 10 Gbit channel for video data as with classic Thunderbolt.

Re: Mac Pro

#485

Post by nicholassmith »

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…

I think this is mostly a troll, Apple 'concentration camps'? Seriously?

Re: Mac Pro

#486

Post by geon »

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…

> The 'if it were android' bit just shows how completely Apple has made us expect the web to not be open.

I think it reflects more how bad Apple are at browser compatible websites, and how we expect them to suck. I have run into many issues in the iOS devcenter where it would only work in Safari. Lame.

Re: Mac Pro

#487

Post by geon »

Ygg2 wrote: post #472
btown wrote: post #231

Copywriting and product-debate aside, that's some pretty impressive frontend presentation. From what I can tell from the minified JS, they're using Require.JS for code organization, their own jQuery-like utility toolkit they call Apple Core, fully pre-rendered text everywhere, and javascript that plays and pauses two copies of the HTML5 video, one backwards and one forwards, shuffling their opacities for seamless tra…

I haven't seen any video or animation on either FF or Chrome (on Win machine). Any idea what browser does it work in?

Probably works in Safari.

Re: Mac Pro

#488

Post by josteink »

adamt wrote: post #459
josteink wrote: post #457

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that a "pro" computer with no wired ethernet? Who on earth would discard stable gigabit internet for some flaky wifi with substantially lower performance? Edit: Corrected as requested. Thanks.

If you scroll 'down' to the bit about expansion it says it has gigabit Ethernet.

I was looking at the IO bit, and due to the new horrible black on black labels, I was unable to see that there were actual ethernet ports there.

Completely unrelated ofcourse, but that's pretty telling about the black on black + led thingie they've gone for. It's not something to be taken too far.

Edit: I have my monitors in portrait mode. Setting a window to span several monitors and work in "landscape-mode", I can see ethernet is mentioned. On a portrait screen it falls outside the visible area of the viewport and there are no scrollbars.

Edit 2: By resizing the window, I see that the width of the viewport is adjusted based on the height of the visible viewport (w = 2*h). So on a portrait type display (tall) the width of everything is adjusted to be even bigger. This pushes most of the content (apart from the black tube) outside the visible viewport and off the screen.

Basically, this page was designed to only ever work in landscape and break doubly in portrait. And hence most of the details on the page were simply not available.

Re: Mac Pro

#489

Post by mcintyre1994 »

tech-no-logical wrote: post #480
btown wrote: post #231

Copywriting and product-debate aside, that's some pretty impressive frontend presentation. From what I can tell from the minified JS, they're using Require.JS for code organization, their own jQuery-like utility toolkit they call Apple Core, fully pre-rendered text everywhere, and javascript that plays and pauses two copies of the HTML5 video, one backwards and one forwards, shuffling their opacities for seamless tra…

pity it does nothing in opera but show the can, and I wore out my mousewheel by scrolling to slide 2 in firefox. probably just tested in safari. preaching to their own choir I guess.

Android AOSP browser doesn't scroll either, and chrome on Android shows nothing. Weird since they're both WebKit.

Re: Mac Pro

#490

Post by vl »

dasmoth wrote: post #450
seanp2k2 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds about right. It's nice to imagine them doing a version with a single socket and a nice-but-consumer-level GPU -- that would finally be a worthy embodiment of the mythical "xMac" -- but they've been actively disinterested in releasing a headless mid-range machine for years, and I can't see that changing now.

Looks like this version is single socket only.
Post reply on HN