MOTUnation.com

Really? So Mac Pros are all hype and no better than minis and laptops?

I don't care where you come from, that's funny right there.

Two processors, multiple internal hard drives and generous space for ram are the important things to me. As I'm concerned they can shed the optical drives/burners and PCI space and reduce size... And make it rack mountable. That would be a killer!

I'm down with that.

As interesting as a redesigned Mac Pro sounds, I foresee greater costs to get my system in order if Apple starts dropping interfaces like PCIe (by bye UAW2 card) and Firewire (need to buy a Thunderbolt- Firewire adaptor or new audio interface). I don't need USB3, and I don't need a powerful video card... the current base card should run my three monitors nicely. Since my Mac is kept in a machine room, I don't care if it is rack mountable either.

The above stated, I'm liking the base 12-core now... I'm in desperate need of an upgrade and I would be able to upgrade further to 3.xx gHz processors (at future reduced cost) should the 2.4 gHz ones ever fall short of my needs, which seems unlikely given a machine that should Geekbench in the 18,000 range.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Really? So Mac Pros are all hype and no better than minis and laptops?

I don't care where you come from, that's funny right there.

I didn't say that. Obviously the current line of Mac Pros with 12 cores, four drives, and a load of expansion cards will do a lot more than current minis and laptops.

Just saying that it is possible to build a new small computer that will do all the things larger computers can do, other than provide physical space for PCI cards and disk drives. And now that there are clear alternatives to those features that require physical space. The new configuration is not even due for a year, and a lot can happen in a year.

Why does it matter if drives are in the CPU case or in external cases? What's the remaining life cycle for PCI cards? What would be wrong with a case like a Mini's with 16 cores, loads of RAM, 2T SSDs and a load of ports for eSATA, TB, USB 3, FW800, etc?

Mike?

bayswater wrote: Why does it matter if drives are in the CPU case or in external cases? What's the remaining life cycle for PCI cards? What would be wrong with a case like a Mini's with 16 cores, loads of RAM, 2T SSDs and a load of ports for eSATA, TB, USB 3, FW800, etc?

Not a thing but, please, not a case like the Mini. Something that is easy to service and swap HDs with a little room so that forced cooling is a luxury when things get warm, not a life or death issue for the components (unlike the Time Capsule and Mini). SSDs reduce the heat considerably so it can be done.

As for internal drives. It's usually cheaper to buy internal drives. And some external drives make an awful lot of noise.

mikehalloran wrote:

bayswater wrote: Why does it matter if drives are in the CPU case or in external cases? What's the remaining life cycle for PCI cards? What would be wrong with a case like a Mini's with 16 cores, loads of RAM, 2T SSDs and a load of ports for eSATA, TB, USB 3, FW800, etc?

Not a thing but, please, not a case like the Mini. Something that is easy to service and swap HDs with a little room so that forced cooling is a luxury when things get warm, not a life or death issue for the components (unlike the Time Capsule and Mini). SSDs reduce the heat considerably so it can be done.

I agree. Not a mini case but I don't see that it needs to be huge and certainly not the huge aluminum cooling system and room heater like my G5. I don't have one but understand with the current mini you can pop the bottam off and get at everything easily.

>certainly not the huge aluminum cooling system and room heater like my G5<

The current Mac Pros, though they have the same form, are nothing like the heat pumps that the G5s were. 7200rpm HDs are the other major heat source.

You know, the Xserve was a pretty nice version. Three instead of four HD bays, though.

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP511


An updated version with TB and an optional expansion chassis to hold additional drives (also rack mounted) would satisfy the needs of most working pros. The 2009 specs in the link above looked pretty nice - just needs a better video card. Link CD burners via USB (not FW with the Intel processors) and you have something. I would think most AV pros would have no problem ditching the tower and going rack mounted.

Yes, the Xserve was a dinosaur. The idea behind it was quite good, however. I think it should be rethought in a shorter package with the newer energy efficient CPUs.

So why are electrical racks 19" wide? A retired Navy engineer tells me it is the maximum width you can safely move in a submarine. I have never heard a better reason.

Why not link CD burners via FW?

mikehalloran wrote:>certainly not the huge aluminum cooling system and room heater like my G5<

The current Mac Pros, though they have the same form, are nothing like the heat pumps that the G5s were. 7200rpm HDs are the other major heat source.

You know, the Xserve was a pretty nice version. Three instead of four HD bays, though.

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP511


An updated version with TB and an optional expansion chassis to hold additional drives (also rack mounted) would satisfy the needs of most working pros. The 2009 specs in the link above looked pretty nice - just needs a better video card. Link CD burners via USB (not FW with the Intel processors) and you have something. I would think most AV pros would have no problem ditching the tower and going rack mounted.

So why are electrical racks 19" wide? A retired Navy engineer tells me it is the maximum width you can safely move in a submarine. I have never heard a better reason.

Are server oriented Macs like the Mac -mini server or Xserve somewhat compromised for DAW work due to server oriented functions they perform?
I've heard this mentioned by a few users in various threads,until then a MMS looked like a nice inexpensive way to upgrade but the reports of compromised performance planted a seed of doubt in my mind.
True or False?

A rack mount pro would be great. Even better if they could be networked to operate as a distributed processor.

(Telephone companies were using 19" racks at least as far back as the 30s, and might have adopted them from the navy, but aren't most sailors wider than 19"?)

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Why not link CD burners via FW?

Nothing wrong with it but some features don't work in FW. Lightscribe, for example (blea!). When option-booting to do a restore, FW CD drives may not show up - USB will. I have had problems with FW drives booting Intel Macs by holding the C key - not an issue with USB.

FW is great when the system is up and running. USB is better when the system isn't or you are trouble shooting.

I have one burner in a USB housing, another in a FW400/USB housing and a third in a FW800/USB/eSATA housing.

I still take care of many PPCs. For that, having a FW400 external is essential as PPCs can't boot from USB.

mikehalloran wrote:The current Mac Pros, though they have the same form, are nothing like the heat pumps that the G5s were.

Boy, amen to that!! What a difference it was when I went from my G5 to my MacPro! It's no wonder Apple had to bail out of the PPC architecture.