"Perspective folks"

[Alan Baker]

'The loudest complaining is about "lack of expandability" - which is a
very silly, inccorrect statement. This new computer is the MOST
EXPANDABLE computer that APPLE has ever made. They made a radical
choice that all expansion has to be EXTERNAL as opposed to INTERNAL.
Via Thunderbolt 2.0 and USB 3.0.

"OMG we are going to have a mess of cables and periferals all over our
desks!!" people cry. Really? You can always put this under your desk -
and it's TINY. If you are so in love with your big 40lb Mac Pro on your
floor - buy a metal box the same size and drop one ... or two ... or
three ... of the New Mac Pro computers inside of it. Put it in
persepctive folks.

So ... your an editor. You can connect three displays (even 4K) directly
to the computer. That's one cable from the computer to each of the
monitors. You have HDMI 1.4 out - no adapter needed - so you couls also
connect that to a Plasma, LCD, LED, 3D TV or 4K TV with one HDMI cable -
and then connect two monitors via TB>Displayport. Most editors don't
even need video I/O cards / devices today - when was the last time you
ingested from tape? Really want to output to a HD-SDI monitor?

AJA T-Tap for $269 or BlackMagic Ultrastudio Mini Monitor for $137

There is no doubt we will see lots of new options for TB 2.0 expansion
enclosures. There's no doubt we will see creative rack-mount solutions -
which will put THREE of these bad boys in the less than the same space
as one current Mac Pro.'

<http://offhollywoodreporter.com/blog/category/the-new-mac-pro-think-diff
erent>

Mark L. Pederson, Producer, Cinematographer...

<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0669995/>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Gary]

Agreed, Apple have a game changer here through design and power.

Look forward to the launch.

[KDT]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 3:02:30 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> 'The loudest complaining is about "lack of expandability" - which is a
>
> very silly, inccorrect statement. This new computer is the MOST
>
> EXPANDABLE computer that APPLE has ever made. They made a radical
>
> choice that all expansion has to be EXTERNAL as opposed to INTERNAL.
>
> Via Thunderbolt 2.0 and USB 3.0.

And by definition....there is a lot more room for expansion *outside* of any box than *inside*.

[Nashton]

Boy those pom poms are a-waving today!

[KDT]

So do you dispute the fact that someone would have more space *outside* of a computer than inside?

[Nashton]

And we're all fully aware that pros have been adding graphics
cards....outside of their computers for years now.

Why are all you Maccies dumber than a bag of hammers?

[AD]

On Jun 14, 10:02 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> 'The loudest complaining is about "lack of expandability" - which is a
> very silly, inccorrect statement. This new computer is the MOST
> EXPANDABLE computer that APPLE  has ever made. They made a radical
> choice that all expansion has to be EXTERNAL as opposed to INTERNAL.
> Via Thunderbolt 2.0 and USB 3.0.
>
> "OMG we are going to have a mess of cables and periferals all over our
> desks!!" people cry. Really? You can always put this under your desk -

got little kids?
I dare you to put anything, let alone $5k worth of hardware within
their reach. See what happens

[ed]

What a silly argument - pretty much much everything is within little kids reach if you let them close, on the desk or below. Those rugrats can easily get up on chairs and such starting very young.

[AD]

On Jun 17, 11:40 am, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> What a silly argument - pretty much much everything is within little kids reach if you let them close, on the desk or below.  Those rugrats can easily get up on chairs and such starting very young.

Right. But somehow they did not manage to trash the PC midtower at
home (yet? maybe they like PCs).
Mice was not so fortunate though. Thankfully my wife is screwdriver
friendly,
so a working computer is just an ever shortening mouse cable away.

I'm not so sure she can put a torn thunderbolt cable together though

I have a roundinsh shelf setup above the computer, but that is
occupied by a laser printer,
there is no more room to hoist more equipment up there except right by
the ceiling.
I wonder if 8 feet of thunderbolt cables would work even if I ever
risk putting anything as light
as mac pro on the desk.

So yes, the weight does matter in my application, and the more the
better

Every pound of cpu cooler and a few pounds of a PSU matters.

[KDT]

Well,this might surprise you, but technology changes. "Pros" have never had an interface that allowed them the bandwidth to have external graphic expansions.

It is kind of hilarious that you of all people can speak for computer pros.

[Sandman]

In article
<099ff560-5647-457d...@8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

Wannabe trolls scrambling hard to invent reasons why the Mac Pro is bad
:)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

On 6/17/2013 6:45 AM, KDT wrote:
> Well,this might surprise you, but technology changes.

Not yet, it hasn't and expandability is understood, as far as computers
are concerned as internal which is why people buy towers and will
continue to do so.

Unfortunately for you, technology hasn't changed because Apple had a few
brain farts.

> "Pros" have never had an interface that allowed them the bandwidth

> to have external graphic expansions.

And they still....don't.

>
> It is kind of hilarious that you of all people can speak for computer pros.

First of all, responding to your nonsense which I'm aware of the
futility of it all, is much harder because you can't limit your chars.
I have owned towers since the PPC 9600 and use it for photo editing and
movies. I dabbled in 3d creation with strata and used PCs for C4D.

I am not a professional but I can afford to spend the money on the
fastest hardware possible to manipulate huge RAW images from LR to PS.

Now if you can't wrap your puny little bird-brain around the fact that
power users and non-pros use fast towers, how do you expect to learn
anything?

>

[-hh]

On Jun 17, 7:14 am, Nashton <n...@na.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 6:45 AM, KDT wrote:
>
> > Well,this might surprise you, but technology changes.
>
> Not yet, it hasn't and expandability is understood, as far as computers
> are concerned as internal which is why people buy towers and will
> continue to do so.

Some will ... but more than half of all computers sold today already
are not desktops (and at Apple, over 75% IIRC). As such, the
consumers are voting with their wallets for what's important to
them ... and it isn't for gobs of inside-the-box expandability.

> Unfortunately for you, technology hasn't changed because Apple had a few
> brain farts.
>
> > "Pros" have never had an interface that allowed them the bandwidth
> > to have external graphic expansions.
>
> And they still....don't.

Except that the attempted point fails because there's not many
different ("Better") models of PCIe cards sold for the Mac Pro to put
into these empty internal PCIe slots. Here's a full list:

<http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/faq/mac-pro-default-
graphics-cards-dvi-dual-link-mini-displayport.html>

The ATI Radeon HD 5770 and 5870 are the Apple OEM choices, and per the
above (and barring DIY flashing of ROMs), the 3rd party aftermarket
is:

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
NVIDIA Quadro 4000
AMD Sapphire Radeon HD 7950
PNY NVIDIA Quadro K5000
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Mac Edition

Haven't bothered to look at the rest, but the K5000 calls for a 16x
slot, so it probably can be expected to saturate a TBv2 connection -
but at $1800 for one card, this should pretty much be expected.

> > It is kind of hilarious that you of all people can speak for computer pros.
>
> First of all, responding to your nonsense which I'm aware of the
> futility of it all, is much harder because you can't limit your chars.
> I have owned towers since the PPC 9600 and use it for photo editing and
> movies. I dabbled in 3d creation with strata and used PCs for C4D.
>
> I am not a professional but I can afford to spend the money on the
> fastest hardware possible to manipulate huge RAW images from LR to PS.

That claim would be relevant if these Adobe Mac software products
materially leveraged the GPUs in the video cards for enhancing
performance. Granted, there's some GPU-aware filters now (finally) in
Mac CS6 for Photoshop, but per the Adobe support pages I checked,
there's no OpenGL acceleration in Lightroom at all.

For example,

"Lightroom requires a video card that can run the monitor at its
native resolution. Built-in, default cards that ship with most desktop
or laptop systems typically suffice for Lightroom."

<http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-
lightroom.html>

FYI, here's the Photoshop page - good luck figuring out when/where
they're talking about Mac vs Windows:

<http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html#Tested
video cards for Photoshop CS6>

...as well as relevant performance benchmarks for how much of a
difference a better video card might actually make, even if your
workflow involved the specific individual tools (filters) that Adobe
has improved...yes, this last part is an important caveat because the
modular structure that Adobe has used for Photoshop means that the
enhancement doesn't change performance across the board, but only for
the individual filter (subroutine) which got GPU awareness added.
Which is precisely why I said "materially", above.


-hh

[KDT]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 7:14:10 AM UTC-4, Nashton wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 6:45 AM, KDT wrote:
>
> > Well,this might surprise you, but technology changes.
>
>
>
> Not yet, it hasn't and expandability is understood, as far as computers
>
> are concerned as internal which is why people buy towers and will
>
> continue to do so.
>

Luckily for the rest of the world, people don't take your [sic] "understanding" of technical matters as gospel.

>
>
> Unfortunately for you, technology hasn't changed because Apple had a few
>
> brain farts.

So are you claiming that the expansion ports (which according to you don't exist since expansion is internal). Aren't fast enough to drive extra video hardware?

>
>
>
> > "Pros" have never had an interface that allowed them the bandwidth
>
>
>
> > to have external graphic expansions.
>
>
>
> And they still....don't.
>

So Thunderbolt doesn't have the required bandwidth?

> First of all, responding to your nonsense which I'm aware of the
>
> futility of it all, is much harder because you can't limit your chars.
>
> I have owned towers since the PPC 9600 and use it for photo editing and
>
> movies. I dabbled in 3d creation with strata and used PCs for C4D.

Ooooh not only can you "edit config files" and "compile Linux", you can edit photos!

>
>
>
> I am not a professional

But I'm sure you've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So that allows you to speak about what professionals need....

>
>
> Now if you can't wrap your puny little bird-brain around the fact that
>
> power users and non-pros use fast towers, how do you expect to learn
>
> anything?
>

So you're going to tell me which line in the Apache config files I need to edit to get it working?