Originally Posted by stargate125645
Eh... The lie spreading comes from your misunderstanding of the laws and their purpose. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should, especially when the laws were written for a time when holding overseas accounts from money made off of digital goods didn't exist. The fact of the matter is that what Apple is doing screws over the companies that cannot do that, including the little guy. There are always repercussions to skirting the spirit of something like this, and just because you choose to overlook them doesn't mean they don't exist. There is still plenty of hand waving to distract from the reality of what Apple is doing and has done. I said nothing that was untrue, and even said the products were good (though you conveniently overlooked that)*. Simply pointing out reality isn't blind hate. Your blind love makes it look that way.
Don't like it, take it up with your government. Its perfectly legal and morally sound for any company to headquarter and base their operations or channel profits to another jurisdiction with lower tax rates be it another state or another country; these other jurisdictions (Bermuda for instance), usually have tighter regulations as well - i.e. better anti-corruption laws, money laundering prevention, compliance and transparency requirements etc. Apple or any other companytaking advantage of that and playing by the rules is only doing good business.
Originally Posted by KeyboardXpert
And they are more reliable-they don't crash like Windows does
Care to back that up?
Having and using both extensively, I can say you're dead wrong.
Originally Posted by Adversity
How do you know they won't support external thunderbolt 2.0 graphics cards for the future? Apple's presentation was only to show a "sneak peak" and that's what they did. They had 6 of the thunderbolt ports on there, I'm sure there good for something. What's wrong with external storage via thunderbolt? Why must everything be inside the tower? I know that the external thunderbolt storage is more expensive but the Mac Pro is designed for professionals who can easily purchase the high-end thunderbolt systems (such as RAID systems).
Those are pretty much only good for storage and peripherals
Originally Posted by KeyboardXpert
RMA rates source? Also, that just shows how many people returned them, not how many had problems with the build quality or device itself. I see people with Macs that are 5+ years old all the time, and they still function without lag or crashing. That simply doesn't happen with PCs. The registry clogs up with errors, then the entire system grinds to a near-halt, then Windows manages to somehow corrupt the hard drive.
I've never had a clogged up system, or system grind to a halt that wasn't the result of me loading it up with more tasks than it can handle. Those registry claims are pretty bogus, those registry cleaners effectively do very little; Windows doesn't corrupt hard drives either - these problems are all user generated, tons of crapware, toolbars, junk files, hard shutting down etc. These are all problems that are experienced on Macs as well; permissions get corrupted, programs act weird and put data in random folders, system lockup, hard resets; Macs get those too.
Macs are only above average in reliability in the first year, after that they're on par with any other quality system. A quick search of various consumer reports would reveal those stats.
Originally Posted by perfectblade
recommended requirements does not equal performance speed-again i'm not talking about the space they take up, just the zippiness within the os. though part of it has to do with the fact you don't have run an av in with linux and osx
Side by side, no difference at all.
Idk what av you be using but any reasonably decent one will use next to nothing sitting in the background.
Originally Posted by Blameless
Way in the past being...Windows Vista?
Cause XP/2003 and older versions of Windows typically aren't slower on lower end systems, and certainly use less resources than Windows 7 or 8.
I've found 7 to run much better than XP on every older system capable of running it I've installed it on.
Originally Posted by dtolios Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Well, most of the comments on this thread are not made by those people that will use anything in that range.
They find it impressive that it will have a 12core, 2 gpus and a fast SSD. Welcome to 2013...ofc it is faster than its predecessor... that doesn't make it impressive, as the predecessor was seriously outclassed already.
People look at the specs of the top configuration and talk about a couple of thousands here and there, and how economy of scale through apple magic will bring prices down...
Ofc, today 8-cores are retailing for $1700-4000 (1x CPU alone) and W9000s @ $3000+ a piece - how could apple offer that for $5,000?
...the $5000 will be a low-clocked hex @ best, with a single low end GPU and joke RAM quantities - unimpressive, just like all workstations from all companies are "unimpressive" @ their entry point.
You have to drop some serious money on it for it to remotely approach the performance of a 3970X, and that of-course will happen only on multithreaded tasks within some multithreaded applications.
Throwing a "video transcoding" or w/e guess you have on where a lot of cores count, doesn't mean that the CPU will be seeing more than 1-2 threads in use for 90% of the time. It is the reason why most synthetic benchmarks that don't give a lot of gravity to SMP performance would rate a 3770K or 4770K @ stock clocks faster than both a 3970X and any Xeon. Single threaded performance is not that great.
For the lower clocks on many cores to make up the difference, you need a lot of the latter, thus people serious about CPU intensive tasks, do not go for the 1P systems: simply put the performance advantage in SMP is rarely enough to make them forget the sacrifice in singly threaded stuff...they will go 2P, or - even more likely - will go the render farm route, opting for a fast i7 based workstation with decent GPUs etc, and off-load the rendering tasks in multiple, simple render nodes that are far more efficient cost wise, and can render in the background without clogging your manned workstation.
If you need to go big, you will, and why would I go with a Mac Pro if I want the best, when as soon as IB-E will give it the ability for 1P-12C/24T, the guy next door will be offering a 2P-24C/48T?
And will be doing so allowing me to work with existing monitors, existing storage options, existing cards, future cards, your existing DP monitors etc.
It will not look like a jewel on my desk, but guess what? Pros don't really need that. They are fine with a fugly box (like that Tyan FT77A GPU computing barebone) that will make the best of their time.
When the employees of your CG studio get paid $300-400 or more a day, any platform that would increase your productivity , even if it is in the 5 figures, is up for grabs.
Home users drool over the specs, the bold design, joke about crysis fps or are happy that Apple went past 2010...
As said before, it is nice, but the imac looks nicer...you drop the imac or an ipad @ your front desk with your model-secretary to impress your clients, you don't care about sub-par eye-candy over or under your desk - unless you are not part of the actual creative team and you are happy with a great conversation piece that had as a design focus not just how to look good, but to do so by requiring as many proprietary hardware as possible. And ofc the need for black cinema displays
I do hope that this won't be the only Mac Pro we will see in a few months - I thing Apple will still produce the old towers, probably offering 2P options, more than 4 dimms per CPU + PCIe 16x cards and the SSD goody. But they probably knew that the hype for the new design was more important than just announcing that the old fashion tower will at last match the competition in performance without looking much different.