http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Was I right or was I right.
Lush, I'll look forward to the pc imitations :)
A pro workstation
4K video
40GB PCIe
12cores
2x faster floating point
60GB bandwidth
2X faster
Made with rendering in mind
"state-of-the-art AMD FirePro workstation-class GPU with up to 6GB of dedicated VRAM — it features two of them. With all that power, you'll be able to do things like seamlessly edit full-resolution 4K video while simultaneously rendering effects in the background — and still have enough power to connect up to three high-resolution 4K displays."
GPU seven teraflops
"2.5 times faster than the fastest SATA-based solid-state drive and up to 10 times faster than a 7200-rpm SATA hard drive. Most flash storage systems connect via SATA buses designed for slower spinning hard drives. But we designed the new Mac Pro around new PCI Express-based flash controller technology to deliver the fastest solid-state drives available standard in a desktop computer."
PCIe Flash 1250MB/s
"Unified thermal core"
Future resistant expansion
Thunderbolt2 4k Resolution multiple monitors
HDMI 1.4
improved speed wireless
9.9in X 6.6in design
BUILT IN AMERICA!!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)!!!!!!!!!
How much is this going to cost? That would be my question. In particular, if you want a high powered graphics card. The graphics was a major fall down before because the Mac cards were way more expensive.
I must admit that the fan arrangement seems logical. Heat rises so fan should be on top. It's also physically small. Those older cases were far too cumbersome. It's going to cost a fortune though. That's almost guaranteed.
What an awesome and totally unexpected design. And how small.
Now anyone who's going to reproduce something like this can be rightfully sued instead of sueing Samsung et al. over totally natural and logic design decisions which never should have been patented.
THIS, this is truly original and innovative design.
Spec-wise nothing special and all the performance improvements compared to the previous Mac Pro can be easily addressed to the natural development of the components through past years, virtually none of them developed by Apple self in terms of CPU, memory, SSD and GPU.
The previous (or current, still) is quite a few years old and of course at least 2x slower than this one to come. That has little to do with Apple.
Curious about pricing too!
I really hope its affordable :-[ Otherwise lets give them the plant factory treatment! ;D
Built in America may raise costs? Maybe they got deals though, I mean with states on taxes? They are building in Texas among others. But not in California, which is logical.
QuoteHow much is this going to cost? That would be my question. In particular, if you want a high powered graphics card
I would like to know who is even building it. Is it completely Apple or the usual companies? Apple never built their own graphics cards before.
Also, what about the OS?
Will Planetside need to do a new version? Will All my soft run? ISO 7 comes out at the same time. This fall, probably between the start of the new college year, and Christmas.
This has been an exciting 8 days or so on these forums! Lots of stuff to think about and talk about. Thanks for that guys!
QuoteAnd an HDMI 1.4 port provides support for the latest televisions, projectors, and displays, including Ultra HD TVs.
A new apple TV coming too?
And what about 12 GB graphics cards, or rather 2 6GB graphics card standard? I have never seen a graphics card with 6 GB of memory. Has anyone?
It will be a huge price to begin with since it's so new and there will be a huge hype. There's not really anything like it. It will die down and maybe get cheaper later but then again there will be quite a small market for this machine. Mini's are a good deal because they are older hat and not hyped. Those aren't powerful for graphics stuff but pretty powerful little computers for most things.
Agree with T-U, the design is the only differentiator (hardware is honestly nothing special,), but the design *is* legitimately cool, much more so than I personally think almost any previous one has been. The G4 Cube was interesting previously, but this is not only beautiful but (theoretically) *functional*, which makes a big difference toward my respect for the design. It does seem quite intuitive and if it works as well as it seems it could, I do hope there are "cheap knock-offs". Yes, this may be worthy of some kind of design patent, but if all the various heat sink innovators out there haven't already patented their own stuff (which I would assume is not the case given how many similar models there are, even for "weird" designs), then I'm curious if Apple even can patent it...
Graphics cards are ATI, I believe. No of course Apple doesn't make their own graphics cards. They don't make their own *anything*. They have unique designs for enclosures, but not hardware components (e.g. graphics card, CPU, etc.).
- Oshyan
Yes I think that's correct if you'd ask me Oshyan, about the hardware.
However, I do not exclude the possibility that some of the hardware inside is adjusted to go along with this design.
I think that definitely includes the motherboard. Hence the angle at which the memory banks are positioned.
Perhaps they have also trimmed as much as possible from the ATi videocards.
Because how the beep do they cram all that stuff into that tube.
QuoteGraphics cards are ATI, I believe. No of course Apple doesn't make their own graphics cards. They don't make their own *anything*. They have unique designs for enclosures, but not hardware components (e.g. graphics card, CPU, etc.).
Yes. but i think if you read between the lines, then there is strong indication that efficiency is whats special here. The parts for this mac, will not fit or work in any other system. I expect that when using it with software there will be some nice surprises.
The design is so revolutionary, that it is impossible for me to not expect that (along with the OS) *using* this system will not be better (assuming everything works). In order for them to cram 12 GB of graphics cards standard, there must be a TON of optimization here.
The best pro cards I have seen shopping around never had more than 2-4GB and were huge. (cards are important to me because I use mudbox and maya as well as editing soft). So I agree with martins last post. There is more here than they are letting you see.
What I like is that all of the top versions of important components are standard.
Here is the keynote for the developers conference http://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2013/ you can skip ahead to the subjects that interest you.
On the cost.
Being that it is made in the US (assembled and some parts machined) I would expect that this would raise the price. however really, the cost may be lowered do to tax breaks from states for bringing jobs (everyone wants to work for apple).
There is also a significant reduction in the need for raw materials, thus reducing costs.
In the end I don't think this will cost anymore than any tower before. And may even be a good amount less due to a number of other factors.
Its really about the OS though, right? either you love windows or you hate it. If you hate it your on a mac. Its probably no more complex than that for most people. Frankly, if the price is right, you will see a lot of people switching on the OS alone, as usual.
On the late 2009 tower I have I get pretty good results from TG2 now. Not to far off from some of you with better knowledge of comp systems. So even if I only get 2x faster in any category with the new system, that is frigging fast.
But I really expect that it will be more than that, in a number of areas. MUdbox will be a Dream.
Still, Ill wait to get too excited. Im still poor.
Probably I am going to put my money where my mouth is. Im not going to buy anything from apple until they explain there cooperation in spying on Americans.
They need to explain themselves. So do the other companies.
Enough is enough.
Hi,
What I like most about the new Mac Pro is that there is one. There has been some speculation that Apple might move away from the high end desktop which would be a shame. As to the machine itself, my main concern is what the expense will be, especially with two GPUs and Flash storage. I think expansion via Thunderbolt is reasonable, though I would rather have my HDs inside the machine than outside as separate enclosures are a bit of a pain. I have 4 HDs in my Mac Pro and several external drives. Overall though I think the new Mac Pro looks like a clever design and I'd be happy to have one. I think I'll be sticking with my current Mac Pro for a while yet though :-).
For me Badger is right that it's the OS that matters. Although I'm not a fan at all of some of the moves Apple has been making I still prefer OS X to Windows and I use both regularly. Windows 7 was the first version of Windows which doesn't annoy me constantly and which I didn't mind using, but Windows 8 seems like a great leap backwards. I've also been using Linux of various vintages lately, and none of those desktop environments have grabbed me. I've also been very happy with all the Apple hardware I've owned over the years.
BTW I dont expect we'll need to have new version just for OS X Mavericks. The changes for that sound pretty minor so far.
Regards,
Jo
No, there is not "more than they are letting you see", and there is going to be nothing whatsoever that's revolutionary about the performance. That is not how the industry works, it's not how Apple works. They *do not* invent revolutionary performance hardware, period; not for a long time, if ever. No, they are using mostly off-the-shelf hardware here, as always. Sure, the graphics cards may be custom layouts, but the chips on them are standard and available for a while elsewhere, and that's what determines performance (that and good video drivers which frankly the Mac platform has lagged on for a long time, unfortunately). Video RAM doesn't mean that much in many cases either. 6GB is nice to have, but it will cost you a pretty penny, and it probably will only matter in a few applications vs., say, 2-3GB which is far more common. Such 6GB graphics cards are already available anyway, and are probably similar to - if not better than - what you'll get in the new Mac Pro (but again they cost you, hehe) http://goo.gl/uEEqZ (http://goo.gl/uEEqZ) The CPUs are standard Haswell-based Xeons (new, but available in the PC space of course).
Do not make the mistake of thinking this thing is in any way special *performance wise*. Is it not, it never will be. Upon release I guarantee you that you will be able to get a Windows box with equal or better performance for equal or lower price. I recognize that A: said machine would not run OS X (easily), and that is a big factor for you and many others, and that's perfectly legitimate, and B: no other system will have the same design and theoretical efficiency in cooling, small size and low noise combination. All I'm saying is don't get over-excited about it from a performance standpoint: it is not special. Period. That is not something Apple has been able to legitimately claim since they switched to Intel architecture. If you like the design and the price is right for you, go for it, it's really your only option for a truly high performance Apple computer. Just don't be expecting something "special" from it in the performance department (unless your only basis for comparison is other Macs, in which case yes, it's the fastest Mac available :D).
- Oshyan
Yes Apple doesn't do anything related to hardware/performance and such.
The "only" thing they make is a user experience in a combination of design, functionality and ease of use.
I've read elsewhere that the single-socket, as seen on the mac pro website, will likely contain the newest Haswell 12-core Xeon, so no 2x6 core Xeon.
Furthermore some claimed that Apple used to have earlier access to CPU's before so that would mean that this new mac pro's 12-core Xeon will be available before the PC market has access to it.
Not of that much importance about the availability, but the idea of a 12-core Xeon is definitely interesting.
I'm really curious about the price. Can't be under $5k, or can it?
Jeez Oshyan, you really know how to kill a dream.
But ok, if everything you say is spot on I can except it. I like apple but I don't worship it. Doesn't really matter anyway. Im going to stick by and not buy from companies that obey orders to betray the confidence of their customers and piss on the constitution. Probably Ill end up like that lone occupy guy down the street, looking like a crazy person and living in a tent.
Hopefully we will get some truth and some closer soon, and I wont have to stick to it for too long. :-[
But besides that. If it really is more than Im used to paying for a tower, I will switch to a PC. strictly and solely for money reasons. Ill hate it, but I'll do it.
Frankly though, I don't care if apple makes their components or not, and I never did. It may be nice if they did though. But I just want the fastest most long lasting stuff I can afford, and never or only very rarely have to deal with windows, preferably never. Linux isn't supported enough to be convenient for me.
Reading the CGSociety thread about the Mac Pro which contains some quotes and insider info and of course heavy rumours...interesting nonetheless...
It seems that the GPU's have a different form-factor, especially produced for this Mac Pro.
Nvidia may produce GPU's for this form-factor as well.
So perhaps somewhere in 2014 you can assemble a Mac Pro with all kinds of GPU's.
That's going to be a lot more interesting of course with the increase of CUDA-based GPU apps over OpenCL, which still is a slow starter.
A Xeon E5 with 12 cores would indeed be something new, currently those top out at 8 cores (16 threads), while E7's are 10/20. Though of course not for long, if at all; Intel may introduce the 12 core to the mainstream market soon anyway (not that I'd be surprised if Apple had arranged some period of exclusivity).
The graphics cards certainly must be custom (form factor, if not GPU). It wouldn't shock me if nVidia made a card for it too, but anything would be better than the paltry selection for previous Mac Pros (it kind of made a joke of the "Pro" moniker; such workstations were never suited for really demanding 3D work because of this). The Fire GLs in the new Mac Pro are a big step up, fortunately, but I doubt we'll see "all kinds of GPUs".
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on June 12, 2013, 03:25:22 AM
A Xeon E5 with 12 cores would indeed be something new, currently those top out at 8 cores (16 threads), while E7's are 10/20. Though of course not for long, if at all; Intel may introduce the 12 core to the mainstream market soon anyway (not that I'd be surprised if Apple had arranged some period of exclusivity).
- Oshyan
Yes that's what people think Apple has arranged...a 2-3 month exclusivity to the first batch of 12-core Xeon's.
Ahh well, then for 2-3 months Badger could have the fastest single CPU system available. After that it'd probably be available for half the price. :D
- Oshyan
There was an FX house in London (can't remember the name) that had a couple of the latest Mac Pro's out front for their clients to look at (it's what they expected to see, after all Mac IS the graphics/FX brand ... supposedly), meanwhile round the back where the work was done were stacks of highly specked but pretty bog standard PC's.
I can't remember the last time a Mac out performed a PC bang for buck.
They do look soo damn sexy though and thats gota count for something ... no?
;)
Quote from: Oshyan on June 12, 2013, 03:40:53 AM
Ahh well, then for 2-3 months Badger could have the fastest single CPU system available. After that it'd probably be available for half the price. :D
- Oshyan
Haha ;D
Definitely Richard. I can't remember Apple beating PC platform when you consider performance/buck.
What matters to their customers is the total experience of design, functionality and ease of use.
That total package seemingly justifies the prices they always handle, because how expensive we think it always has been, they are being sold pretty well. (although frankly I have the feeling that the silence around Mac Pro for quite a while was may be also because Apple was a bit in doubt, because of not so many sold 2010 Mac Pro's?)
QuoteAhh well, then for 2-3 months Badger could have the fastest single CPU system available. After that it'd probably be available for half the price.
- Oshyan
Thank you :'( still crying a little though. ;D
You are right T-U about how important the user experience is to the choice to buy or not. For me anyway. Its immensely important that the computer does not get in my way. And yes, they are VERY pretty! But as I indicated, at a certain point, need out ways the desire for comfort.
So we will see, If new PCs come out that are equal or better and they are half the price, than its a no brainer. But if I will only save a few minutes on a render per frame on a PC, and the mac is not "too much" more costly, than I would stick with a mac, happily.
You guys know a lot more than I do about computers, never thought otherwise. But you still have not proven the case that the new mac will be much more costly than any new release before (of a mac). And I maintain that it will be less than expected. The pro is a legacy product. Apple is not continuing to make it because they think it will make apple a corporate giant ;) Your own words say as much. ITs not a classic car, people do not simply buy it for looks... It does have to work for their needs. My needs have changed since becoming a member of this community. Before this, I had everything I needed in a mac. But now I do 3D. so thats the difference for me I guess.
Are you able to pick what components you have in this thing? Most importantly can you get rid of the ATI and put in a decent Nvidia card? Is Cuda just a PC thing or can Macs make use of it as well? That's another reason to pick Nvidia over ATI as OpenCL is still a problem for some.
I really dread to think what this is going to cost. We buy PC desktops and iMacs at work. When you customise the PC's to match the internal specs of the iMacs (exact same CPU, hard drive size and RAM), the price of the iMacs are coming in hundreds of pounds more in some cases. It's getting really hard to justify spending all that extra money for the exact same components.
As the PC and Mac users have the same budget to replace their desktops we're seeing the PC users upgrading their systems in almost every area and getting a much more powerful system than the Mac guys for the same money.
I can perfectly imagine that ATi offers Apple their customised FirePro's a lot cheaper than Nvidia, just because ATi wants to compete stronger.
I guess Nvidia just lets ATi have this little thing. These Mac Pro's won't go in millions.
Also it wouldn't surprise me that the 2nd version or revision of this model would have Nvidia cards eventually.
The criticism on this new Mac Pro for having OpenCL ATi's already started and given the market they're aiming for they're right.
I have found news articles in the mainstream on this now (non tech centric). And everything is contradictory. No one seems to know the real deal on anything, everyone in the news is sharing their opinions, but not a lot of hard facts.
I dont know what to think now. Its really hard to believe that apple is putting out a computer for 3D artists, that 3D artists are not going to use. REally hard to believe!
I cannot believe that they did not sit down with the software that people will be using and see how it runs on their new desktop. This is why I think its going to be better than you guys do. They must have tested it. Yes?
@Oshyan, you did make one (I think) miss statement. And that is your strong feeling that cards are not so important (or as important). On the contrary, for me, TG2 is the only powerful art soft I use that does not make heavy use of graphics cards.
Anyway, like I said. I don't know what to think now. I guess all the details of everything will be clear once the towers are out and people start testing them.
*
Oh, one more thing.
EVERYONE in what I have been hearing in the press is speculating at the price tag. And there seems to be no appetite at all for a over priced system (even among Mac loyalists (me too)). So I am really curious to see what apple does on this. Apparently they are going to make a new bigger Iphone and sell it under market value.
Someone buying for 3D is NOT the same as someone just buying an Iphone, you know what I mean. No one is in this market to go broke. And its a very small market I think.
Remember that microsoft took big hits on Xbox (intentionally) at first, to get a in on the market. And it worked.
So I just think its very interesting.
But who really knows.
What makes you think Mac Pros are made for 3D artists? Macs haven't been good for 3D for quite a while, partly due to the very poor selection of 3D graphics cards, but also due to poor software support, poor drivers, etc. It's not (necessarily) Apple's fault, but their Pro workstations are largely sold for one of 3 things - Video editing, Audio editing (they have products for both of these tasks, so it makes sense), and image editing/design (e.g. Adobe Creative Suite type stuff). They are *not* made for super fancy 3D, they really aren't.
I didn't say that graphics cards don't matter, what I said is that huge amounts of RAM don't matter. RAM is primarily useful for lots of high resolution textures, less so for large amounts of geometry, and several applications (e.g. Zbrush) don't even use 3D acceleration for their rendering anyway, so the RAM on the card doesn't matter in those cases. All I'm saying is going from 2GB to 6GB per card is nowhere near as useful as going from 200Mhz to 600Mhz in a graphics chip clock, for example. One is basically 3 times the performance (the chip clock speed), which will be beneficial across the board, the other is 3 times the memory but it's only beneficial *when you're using lots of memory* (which may be sometimes, maybe even a lot, but not all the time to be sure; so inherently the clock speed differences matter more). Does that make more sense?
Oh and as far as I know Apple has never taken a hit on their hardware, in fact they have the highest margins in the industry on hardware. So while I could see an iPhone being sold that way, I'm highly, highly doubtful of them doing that with the Mac Pro. What would be the point? Unlike the iPhone, where they gain a customer who will likely use their huge ecosystem of revenue generating services (iTunes, app store, etc.), a Mac Pro user probably won't recoup that value for them ever (if they're selling it below cost).
- Oshyan
QuoteWhat makes you think Mac Pros are made for 3D artists?
News reports.
From CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/tech/innovation/mac-pro-computer (and there are others)
"
The Mac Pro is aimed at a narrow market of professionals such as photographers, videographers, designers and animators."
All the reports, as well as apples website mention animation (not only, but I am sure 3D also.) So thats why I thought the new mac Pro was intended also for 3D artists. I did not really think that before the new mac. Previously, most macs I saw in the field were being used for video, photography, and graphic design. Its only now that I have been reading about the pro towers being "intended" for 3D artists... If thats the right way to put it.
QuoteUnlike the iPhone, where they gain a customer who will likely use their huge ecosystem of revenue generating services (iTunes, app store, etc.), a Mac Pro user probably won't recoup that value for them ever (if they're selling it below cost).
Final cut, Motion, compressor, the "app store", app development soft for iphone/pad apps (?), and some new soft on the way? maybe. Ok, you have a good argument. But Im holding on to hope as long as I can.
And I don't mean below cost, I meant below market value. But I see your point.
Quotein fact they have the highest margins in the industry on hardware
Thats my point though. As far as I remember microsoft did not (still does not?) manufacture the x-box in house, and they have the largest margins on software of anyone. Yet by offering the xbox at a loss and holding on they began to dominate sony.
At the end of the 90's into the 2000's apple dominated in the graphic design and video markets. (back when "silicon graphics" and lightwave were big dogs). Maybe they want back in? If they sell not at a loss, but under value. And the hardware is good enough maybe they will get more users? Again, IM just thinking hopefully. Because if people who love windows complain about windows, I cant imagine how much Im going to hate it.
The rest of what you said was logical and well put. I can't argue there.
I realize im going against the wind here. But isn't there some part of every PC user, that wishes windows didn't suck? And wouldn't an affordable mac that lived up to their hardware needs be a great solution?
Dream a little dream Oshyan. It's ok to like OS X. ;) ;) ;)
Heh, I could go on all day back and forth with this stuff...
They didn't mention anything about 3D in their press release for the Mac Pro, and their own web page says nothing about it either. On the page about GPUs, they say only this "With all that power, you'll be able to do things like seamlessly edit full-resolution 4K video while simultaneously rendering effects in the background — and still have enough power to connect up to three high-resolution 4K displays.". "Animation" could just as easily mean working in After Effects or something else, e.g. video work. Anyway, changing the hardware is a step toward solving the 3D deficit on Macs, but it's just one part of the puzzle; Apple can come up with all the hardware they want, but without better drivers and support from the software publishers, it's still going to be limited compared to Windows (and even Linux to some degree these days).
And anyway, why do you feel like Apple would want to court that market so much? It's high dollar, high margin, granted, but also very small, and they don't have anything appropriate for the real high system purchase role in big VFX: render farms. They'll get a few 10s of 1000s of workstation purchases I guess, but that just can never compare to the billions in revenue they already make from their consumer products, and frankly I think they *ought* to be concerned about spreading themselves thin. I just don't think it's appealing enough of a market for them given the rest of their product line, especially given where they're going with their other products *and* their OS (e.g. incorporating more iOS-like stuff, consumerization, consumption-oriented devices rather than creation-oriented, the cutting down of features of Final Cut, etc.). I get your thinking is, well, aspirational, but I don't think it's very realistic. ;-)
I actually hate OS X, it doesn't work like I think it should or expect it to. I won't say Windows is a perfect dream, but I do like it, it makes sense to me (not talking about Windows 8 here, hehe), and I know how to work it. But I think it's fine if some people find OS X to be great, I will say there are definitely some parts of it I like and wish Windows had (better search for example, and now tagging in Mavericks).
Frankly I think the ease of use is about the same, but the *level of satisfaction* of Mac users tends to be higher, for whatever reason. That is true pretty much across the board with Apple products (although less so these days, I hear more people complaining about their stuff). In general, especially historically, Windows people are pretty much fine with their platform, in fact they usually don't care, sometimes frustrated, sometimes happy, but usually just "meh". Same with the *average* Android user (although there are many fanboys there too). This just contrasts starkly with many - if not most - Apple users who are often very passionate advocates, or at the least "in love with Apple products". I've seen many an Apple lover run into the same kinds of problems Windows users run into, they just see and react to it differently. So I think it is at least in part about attitude and not so much objective superiority or capability.
- Oshyan
You win :'( ;)
Ill buy a PC if the new mac is priced stupidly. Which everyone seems to think it will be.
By the way, Im not a fanboy (LOBO). Im just loyal to companies that make products that effect my life positively. Even when I think maybe I should not be.
At the time I started in on this stuff (early 2000's) I used after effects and other design soft on a mac. I got my first job with united television. It was a huge deal to me. The first computer I owned was a G4 that only recently died (I mean to say it lasted a good long time. not that I'm in mourning ;D). So its a little hard to except that I may have to give up on something that I feel helped to make my life like what I was working for.
In that respect, planetside is similar. In that this is where I got my first taste of 3D as a tool for my creative work. And indeed it turned out to be another big and meaningful step in my creative and professional life. So, Im just saying, go a little easier on this fanboy stuff (everyone ;D).
No one loves anything or anyone without reason. ;)
Oh I don't blame you. All I'm saying is it's simple: wait and see what the pricing is, because there really is not much truly unique about this performance-wise, so it will all depend on just how much they want for this slickly designed little thing. If performance is your biggest concern, you should probably get a PC in the end (unless they really surprise with the pricing), though I realize as a Mac user it's not nearly as simple as that (if only it were as easy to run OS X on random PC hardware as it is to run Windows on Mac hardware).
- Oshyan
True that.
found this though. What do you think? Marketing or real information?.. Albeit not very much.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/a-pixar-artist-on-testing-apples-new-mac-pro-w-out-seeing-it
Yeah, I heard about that demo. Mari users seem genuinely impressed by it (on e.g. CGTalk). Remains to be seen with real benchmarks, but I really don't doubt it'll be a nice performing machine. The only open question is what the price will be and then what equivalent standard PC hardware you could get for the same price. It's even possible there will be no single-box equivalent, yet perhaps (as has been the case in the past) you could get 2 whole systems for the price of one of these, with nearly double the performance (but, yes, split between two computers). For anyone rendering animations, the 2 box setup would be preferable by far, or even with the idea of being able to keep your working machine free for scene development, while rendering tests on a second machine. That's part of the benefit of a dual CPU system as well, though somewhat less so. I'm not suggesting any of this is a legitimate option to consider for many people - not everyone has the space, for one thing, nor the savvy with how to work efficiently on multiple systems at once. Basically I'm just saying: it's still all about price and what you can get for your money. So until we have a price announcement, speculation is for me largely irrelevant.
- Oshyan
Thanks guys. Please keep an eye out on this stuff. Im sure when it comes time, Ill want to pick at your brain goo again.
There's a bunch of reasons why certain systems suit certain things. I have a mini for audio. It's quiet, totally reliable and I can use Logic which I really like. I had to abandon Linux for audio due to poor software and the fact that the Linux community simply can not agree on architectures i.e. audio bus systems. That's sad because Linux totally outperforms both OSX and Windows in terms of reliability and speed in audio throughput.
On OSX, I hated using TG2 because the OSX desktop tends to be a bit sluggish and with apps that require masses of mouse clicking and general UIing about (like TG2) I found it totally got in my way compared to Windows version. It's the same kind of thing when using painting apps where you don't want system hogging desktops.
However, for general daily use, I think it's hard to beat a Macbook or other cheaper Mac.
Then we get to high powered graphcs cards. Mac's were a total fail in this department because it was way more expensive. I'm really happy with Linux at the moment for this angle. Blender for example is able to fully utilise both my CPU anf GPU for rendering and desktop is nice and slim without bloat so on Linux you really benefit from a fast graphics card for several apps and the desktop doesn't hog it. Who knows what kind of costs are going to be involved in the new Mac if you want super powered graphics card. All the hype will be for the fastest model with fastest CPUs and graphics cards. The top end machine will be a fortune.
Windows I don't use much. I used to hate it and that was one reason to use Linux but Windows 7 is much better than previous versions. I don't particularly like a lot of features on Windows compared to Linux but it seems to work much better since version 7.