Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Jun 2013 17:07 UTC
Apple We already talked about iOS 7 yesterday (after a night of sleep, it's only looking worse and worse - look at this, for Fiona's sake!), so now it's time to talk about the downright stunning and belly flutters-inducing new Mac Pro. As former owner and huge, huge, huge fan of the PowerMac G4 Cube - I haven't been this excited about an Apple product since, well, I would say the iMac G4. This is the Apple I used to love.
Thread beginning with comment 564446
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I think it's exciting
by whartung on Tue 11th Jun 2013 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: I think it's exciting"
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

The "10 year" apple refers to has nothing to do with the specs of this specific model being "relevant and current" for a decade, or each machine being an investment that can be used for 10 years by the consumer.

They refer to the basic architecture of the system being of use for apple for at least 10 years. I personally think that is not the case, since it is a single socket architecture, and thus not very scalable for the professional market.


You're confusing Apples 10 year with my 10 year. My 10 year is exactly that, my 10 years. 10 years on my desk -- unrelated to Apple. The basic premise being that the interfaces on that machine were not going away any time soon. The capacity of the machine would be enough to last 10 years (at the time, 2TB internals hard drive + 16GB of RAM, but the hard drives have crushed the 2TB barrier), and while CPU were getting faster, they weren't getting that much faster that quickly. Simply we were topping out the curve of CPU performance that in 10 years it wouldn't be a 8088 at 4.77Mhz. The CPUs would be "fast enough" for 10 years.

All this remained true to form. The only unexpected thing was the 32-bit video sub system that Apple obsoleted in OS X.8, Mountain Lion, when it mandated 64b for everything, all the time. I think the next gen Mac Pro fixed that issue.

So, I'm just not sure if this machine would well serve a consumer for 10 years. 5 easy, just not sure about 10. Were it not for the 32b video subsystem, my first gen Pro would have easily.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I think it's exciting
by tylerdurden on Tue 11th Jun 2013 20:45 in reply to "RE[2]: I think it's exciting"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Sorry, I misread your comment I guess.

Still 10 years out of the same machine, in a field which advances almost exponentially seems not that feasible. Of course that depends on usage patterns for the machine...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I think it's exciting
by whartung on Tue 11th Jun 2013 22:35 in reply to "RE[3]: I think it's exciting"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, I misread your comment I guess.

Still 10 years out of the same machine, in a field which advances almost exponentially seems not that feasible. Of course that depends on usage patterns for the machine...


Truth, but to be fair, save for select fields, while machines continue to get faster and faster, software is not quite outpacing them in terms of demands for resources.

The biggest demands of modern software is mostly memory. CPU demands have somewhat increased, but even today much of that need is being met by multiple cores since they're now ubiquitous (cores I have).

Compilers don't need exponential more amounts of CPU, databases don't, word processing doesn't, etc. The largest consumer of CPU resources is video, and the other growth consumer is video games and GPUs. Since I run a Mac, I've already disqualified myself in being a high end gamer. But, say, Diablo 3, runs fine, as an example. (I upgraded the GPU once couple years ago. The existing card failed.) I also don't do any video work.

The other bottleneck was I/O and SSDs have "solved" that problem for the mid-term. Now, memory is the new disk, to the point that Apple (among others I'm sure) is willing to "sacrifice" abundant CPU resources for memory by compressing idle VM pages.

Clearly the software has become more complex, does more things, is "slower" over time given static hardware environment. But the differences aren't dramatic enough that "seat of the pants" notices it. I do not consider my machine to be "slow" today. Rather, it's "fast enough".

By over specifying and over building early, I save myself from mucking with hardware, upgrading, moving software, etc. on a "routine" basis. A frustrating and painful experience in most cases, even on a Mac. I don't enjoy messing with computers.

Plug it in, set it up, plug in a Time Machine drive, hit "update" when it lights up. Blow the cat fur out maybe once a year.

7 years, and I've lost my Time Machine drive once, and the video card died on me. I think my DVD is sick too.

Reply Parent Score: 4